why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[FaithorFire]

I have a problem with your question. "why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?" There is nothing sudden about this fear. Irrational anti-nuclear radical protesters have fought passionately against all nuclear power plants or nuclear waste storage facility, including the best prepared and maintained sites (see: Yucca mountain) for decades now. Just like any irrational radical fighting for a poorly-thought through cause (anti-nuclear, anti-video game violence, anti-free markets) they believe in, anti-nuclear folks will just patiently wait for a new story to come up which can be turned in their favor, then strike at it. They hold up a single case of a problem as a reason to close an entire sector, when the reality is that a nuclear plant-meltdown is a huge story BECAUSE they are so rare and happen in such extraordinary circumstances.

 

[arcaneviper]

Nuclear power is great energy efficiency wise. However until we can properly destroy/ dispose/ use all of the waste somehow then i'm not really sure i can back it fully. If we perhaps put money into developing photovoltaic panels to be more efficient then that would be awesome. Hell if the sun goes out i think people are going to be more worried about the sudden end of the world than the fact there car no longer works or they have no power for a cuppa tea. hehe

 

[OldGus]

jeez I am actually in favor of nuclear power but this is just idiotic. If you have ever lived anywhere near these things (I'm looking at you Vermont Yankee!) you would know that it is nowhere near a rainforest.

The town of springfield VT is a dump because of the plant (yeah I know springfield has a nuclear plant right?). Rivers are infected with tritium and and other nuclear waste products and they get away with it by lobbying congress to call it "green".

Oh and by the way Springfield is just miles away from the connecticut river and tritium levels have been found ever further distances from there so if Connecticut is exterminated in the next decade you know who to call.

I'm going to tell you a big secret the fed don't want nobody to hear.
(looks left, looks right) C14 is way more dangerous than Tritium. And the most dangerous part? You're already infected. We all are, man. And it keeps happening! We keep getting infected! And the fed don't do nothing about it, man! Let's take down The Man, man!

I'm glad you can joke about the animal extinctions and elevated cancer rates around my area. I take it seriously.

I'm saying "don't blame the tritium." considering its one of the least dangerous radioactive isotopes out there (next to ones used for medical imaging), I would be more apt to blame the "other nuclear wastes." Especially if there's any cesium in that, cause that stuff makes uranium look tame.

 

[FaithorFire]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

This. If I hear one more person mention a "Japanese Chernobyl," I'm going to punch them right in the teeth.

I'm studying to be a nuclear engineer. The Chernobyl nuclear plant was essentially an example of how to do absolutely EVERYTHING wrong. The design of the reactor was obviously influenced by too much vodka, the technicians were inexperienced and were trying to run an inadvisable experiment.

Without going into too much boring detail, the design of the Chernobyl reactor was such that in the event of a loss of coolant, as the temperature increased, so would the reaction rate - leading to a further temperature increase, which meant an even higher reaction rate, and so on. It was essentially doomed from the day it was built, and with absolutely no containment vessel, the results were horrifying.

Reactors in the U.S. and any other country are encased in several feet of steel-reinforced, boronated concrete. F5 tornado? Not a problem. Targeted by a bomb? Also not a problem. Hit by an airliner? Wouldn't even dent it. They're engineered to be immune to explosion, from the inside and the outside. Modern reactor design also incorporates negative failure coefficients and elements of passive safety such that in the even of a coolant loss, the reaction rate decreases and thus the reactor will produce less decay heat.

The reactors in Japan are 40 years old - designs that are greatly outdated by today's standards, and it would still be physically impossible to produce a Chernobyl scenario. Things look very dire, but the contamination will still be very localized, and thus much easier (though still hideously expensive) to clean up. The greatest danger is the fuel rods melting down through the containment vessel and into the ground, creating large amounts of radioactive steam when the molten fuel hits the water table. Steam can be captured and condensed before it escapes and disperses.

Today's reactors, particularly the pebble-bed designs, are ridiculously safe and the U.S. in particular was on the brink of a revival of nuclear power in the face of political pressure to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the sensationalist media will prey on the fears of the ignorant populace and teach them just enough to be afraid, just enough to destroy the momentum of nuclear power. Never mind the fact that coal plants release amazingly high amounts of radioactive fly ash into the atmosphere. Never mind the fact that mining coal in the first place is dangerous and filthy (How about that underground mine fire in Centralia, PA that's been burning for FIFTY YEARS and rendered a town uninhabitable? Safe, eh?). Never mind the hydroelectric dam in Japan that busted as a result of the earthquake and washed away a whole village. Solar power is too inefficient with current technology, wind power is only cost-effective because of massive government subsidies and has negative environmental impacts.

One day, maybe we can get rid of all the idiots that oppose nuclear power and finally bring the power generation industry into the 21st century.

High Five for rational thought and having an opinion on a topic becasue you have actual knowledge of a topic. What do you think about the idea of focusing on building nuclear powerplants in geographic areas without essential water-tables underneath and lacking a high-risk of tectonic/volcanic/whatever kind of geological risks known to cripple such plants.

 

[Atmos Duality]

you're missing the point he is trying to make...

When is the last time you remember a Coal Plant creating an uninhabitable no-man-land in a 100 mile radius? The last city that was made a ghost town for hundreds of years because of a few mistakes in a Solor plant?

A "few minor mistakes"...sigh.
Please read up on Chernobyl before making such painfully ignorant comparisons.

The events that caused Chernobyl could be comparable to unpinning a grenade, and putting it to your ear to hear how long it would take to explode; not Homer Simpson accidentally spilling his coffee on a control panel or bumping the comically large self-destruct button.

Sadly, that last analogy is degree of simplicity that the majority-general populace believes that can cause a meltdown. It simply isn't so.

If his point was to point out the "Radiation is bad, mkay", well, no shit! Fission is immensely powerful. I get that, I respect that. But I don't fear it.

However if he was trying to compare Chernobyl to Fukushima Daichi, then he's dead fucking wrong. A natural disaster of Biblical proportions vs an incredible display of human idiocy.

 

[Unesh52]

I'm glad you can joke about the animal extinctions and elevated cancer rates around my area. I take it seriously.

I know he's being kind of a dick, but I want sources. Tritium is indeed a product of nuclear fission, and it can have health effects if ingested, but is there science behind the claim that there is a significant amount of tritium in your water? and that there is an increase in caner rates caused by this tritium? and that animal populations in the area have decreased due to this tritium?

 

[Unesh52]

Dog. Nuclear shit is scary.

It's like little atoms that you can't see that will fuck your shit up.

I lol'd.

Not sure if serious, but I lol'd. Exactly the mindset of most anti-nuclear activists.

 

[Red Albatross]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

/snip

High Five for rational thought and having an opinion on a topic becasue you have actual knowledge of a topic. What do you think about the idea of focusing on building nuclear powerplants in geographic areas without essential water-tables underneath and lacking a high-risk of tectonic/volcanic/whatever kind of geological risks known to cripple such plants.

If that's what it takes to convince people that the nuclear industry is all about erring on the side of caution so that they'll finally allow more plants to be built, then I suppose that's what will have to happen. That may increase the costs somewhat, however, as it's a very good idea to have a source of water nearby in case of emergency. Note that a great deal of plants are built near an ocean, if possible. But manmade lakes placed near the plants is an option if there's enough precipitation in the area to sustain them.

With the newest designs, even nearby water may be unnecessary - I mentioned the pebble-bed design earlier. It would be passively safe (that is to say, ALL of its systems could fail completely and it would power itself down safely). There are also several other "Generation 4" designs that could be used to burn current nuclear waste as fuel, thus eliminating some of the waste with long half-life and converting it to shorter-lived products.

An advancing technology that I see great promise in is coilguns (railguns, magnetic induction coils, whatever you'd like to call it. If we were to build such a device that could propel moderately heavy loads past the escape velocity, we could fire our nuclear waste into the sun. Given the size of the sun, this would have an effect that would best be described as absolutely negligible in every sense of the word.

 

[Mercsenary]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

See scientists and engineers who were derpy enough to use shoddy construction and unsafe materials. Yeah lets use graphite to cool the core. WAIT GRAPHITE INCREASES HEAT. HERP DERP.

And no there is no chance of the cores in Japan going critical.

1. They are fission plants. They dont even have the right type of uranium or enough of it to make it go up.
2. Hi, this is the ocean. We're really cold. We're just gonna mosey on into the core k?

Granted it'll ruined the material forever but the plants were due of decommissioning. In two weeks.

All this herpy derpy about nuclear power is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD is stupid. We have the ability to use it safely. And we do.

But nooo, lets shut them all down so we can continue to burn our fossil fuels and eventually kill each other over the last oil and coal deposits. Fucking idiots.

 

[Light 086]

Um... Because it could blow up, leak radiation, and kill us all. Ever heard of Chernobyl?

Hmm... Maybe because of a little accident in Chernobyl?

You know, /b/ has a certain eloquence to it's method of getting a message across by way of internet colloquialisms and practical bluntness. With that in mind, let me just say:

lurk more newfags

Wow you hurt my feelings /sarcasm

Being blunt is sometimes the best way to answer a question without going overboard and writing out an essay. I answer the question the OP asked. You lashing out at people who like to have a little fun by posting blatantly obvious answers, is uncalled for. So play nicely and don't be a troll when no one has offended you, you won't make any friends this way just enemies.

If you want a detailed answer:
A nuclear power plant can go critical and once it does, 'pulling the plug' doesn't work. The reactor has to be cooled down otherwise it'll escalate to a critical temperature and melt down, then you'll get similar results to Chernobyl. Radiation particles can be carried by the wind and spread to surrounding areas, thus it cannot be contained like a normal power plant in which fire and pollution is the only concern. People fear this because there is no cure to radiation sickness, all you can do once you get it is to ride it out. Another major byproduct of nuclear power plants is nuclear waste which is extremely bio hazardous to all organic matter and takes an extremely long time to degrade. Radiation is still present in Chernobyl and in Japan where America dropped their two atomic weapons. This is why people fear it even though there is a small chance of one going critical, because once it does the effects are disastrous to the environment and long lasting.

I trust this answer satisfies you more than my previous one?

 

[Internet Kraken]

It's important to realize that though these areas are sparsely populated (and were before the accident as well), that's still not a lot of people, considering the scope of the damage. There's also no reason to think that radiation exposure was the sole cause. Certainly, such cancer existed before the accident as well. Thyroid cancer is not usually deadly if caught early.
And that was about a decade ago. The psychological and economic damage from the evacuations (most of which happened after the bulk of the risk of exposure had passed) is far more severe and widespread.

Also, Chernobyl was a massive, uncontained meltdown. The biggest in history. Only 30 people can be conclusively stated to have died as a result (the remaining speculated deaths are minuscule -- maybe a quarter of a percent of the population at worst), only around 100 people were injured (the remaining speculated injuries are similarly larger, but still negligible) and the local ecology was back on it's feet in a matter of months. Meanwhile, coal burning plants that having been operating for ages do many orders of magnitude more damage to the environment and the health of people every year when functioning properly. What more do you want? Meltdowns don't do shit.

Okay I know you want to pretend that nuclear meltdowns aren't a serious issue, but now you just sound silly. Chernonbyl was back on it's feet in months? Are you joking? I've never heard a single source, even those in favor of nuclear power, make such a wildly inaccurate claim. This is one of my major problems with pro-nuclear people. You try and downplay the dangers of nuclear power. This is just setting us up for a major problem. If you're going to support nuclear power, then you need to confront all the problems associated with it. You can't just say "oh it's not that bad". Yeah it's not as dangerous as the media often portrays, but it's a hell of a lot more destructive than what you're claiming.

Second, who gives a shit about how destructive coal plants are? I never said they were clean. I know they are a big problem as well, but that doesn't mean nuclear is any better. And at least coal doesn't produce wastes that are hazardous for thousands of years.

I'm pretty sure that the government spends at least as much on renewable energy as they do on nuclear. I say that because if they spent any less on nuclear, they would be taking their entire sum of their funds from the piggy bank on my little brother's dresser. But I admit, I have no sources on that, so maybe I'm wrong. I heard that much from Bill Gates in a TED talk, though for some reason I generally understand that we don't spend very much on energy R&D of any kind over here.

Last I heard the majority of US government energy investment goes into coal, natural gas, oil, and ethanol. That's to be expected, however nuclear power does receive a decent chunk of it. Even if the amount of funding nuclear receives is small compared to the others, it's still way more than the pitiful amount that renewable energy gets.

Lastly, new technology and waste -- yes, waste is a problem that needs to be dealt with, and yes, we don't yet have the technology available to deal with that problem. But you seem to ignore the fact that 1) we already have plans for a solution to that problem and essentially all that's needed is money to back it (U-235 waste reactors), and 2) basically the same can be said about renewable energy. The current state of solar and wind, etc. is too inefficient and inconsistent to provide reliable energy. New technologies (like more efficient batteries for storing excess and using it later) must be developed to effectively combat this. Even if nuclear waste is a significant hazard (which, for lack of evidence, also doesn't seem to be a huge problem), we could deal with that.

In addressing number 1, the plan you're referring to is a wreck. I assume you're talking about Yucca mountain, that planned storage sight for the vast majority of "high level wastes" in the US. Well Yucca mountain, despite over 20 years of preparation, was deemed unsafe and shut down by Obama. This was considered the ideal sight at one point, yet despite all the time and money pumped into it it ultimately was not up to par. So no, storing nuclear waste is still a major issue. IF there's some other "plan" you're referring to, please tell me what it is as I didn't hear anything about when researching this all a few weeks ago. As for U-235 waste reactors, I don't know why you'd bother bringing those up because they still produce hazardous wastes. The idea that nuclear reprocessing somehow magically gets rid of all the waste is incorrect. Granted there's a lot less of the waste, but it still exists.

As for 2, you're correct that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar require more investment to become practical on a large scale. However they are by no means a pipe dream, as I have heard some people claim. If the government seriously invested in renewable, by say taking away all the useless funding going into nuclear, we'd see some significant progress. Instead a surprisingly large amount of people want to see us pursue nuclear, even though it a nonrenewable energy source that produces incredibly hazardous waste. We'd get 100 years of power before running out of uranium and having to deal with this all again, along with a ton of nuclear waste to go along with it. Excuse me for not seeing the point in doing this.

But nooo, lets shut them all down so we can continue to burn our fossil fuels and eventually kill each other over the last oil and coal deposits. Fucking idiots.

Yeah, instead lets switch over to nuclear and do the same exact thing over uranium! Because it's not renewable and will at most last 100 years.

 

[Steven True]

And no there is no chance of the cores in Japan going critical.

The authorities in Japan don't see it that way, otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated everybody within a 20 km radius of the Fukushima plant.

 

[Shadowkire]

-snip-

This is one of my major problems with pro-nuclear people. You try and downplay the dangers of nuclear power. This is just setting us up for a major problem. If you're going to support nuclear power, then you need to confront all the problems associated with it.

-snip-

Yeah, instead lets switch over to nuclear and do the same exact thing over uranium! Because it's not renewable and will at most last 100 years.

You both make good points but I want to address these two that you made:

Of all the supposed "dangers" of nuclear power, more people have died from flooding and other disasters related to Hydro-electric dams, more people have even died from wind turbines!!

Chernobyl was the worst case scenario, to the extent that it would have been run better by the Three Stooges. Three Mile Island never killed anyone and the radiation released was less that a chest X-ray, and that was with the safety technologies of 30 years ago! In Japan there has been an earthquake and a tsunami that triggered hydrogen explosions INSIDE THE PLANT, and it STILL HASN'T become a disaster, it has been three days since this began and the Geiger counter is still quiet.

And about Uranium: reactors can be built without it by using other materials, giving us the time needed to improve renewable energies to the point where they can be relied upon.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This. If I hear one more person mention a "Japanese Chernobyl," I'm going to punch them right in the teeth.

What if Japan was to conquer Ukraine?

[A nuclear power plant can go critical and once it does, 'pulling the plug' doesn't work. The reactor has to be cooled down otherwise it'll escalate to a critical temperature and melt down, then you'll get similar results to Chernobyl.

The reactor is supposed to be critical, it's part of the normal function of the facility.

If you have a core meltdown, the core melts down. Hence the name. It then flows into a specially made drain and sits there. The reactor is henceforth useless. The Japanese opposition party condemns the government because it'll cost the taxpayers a fortune to build another one, and stands a much better chance of winning the next election.

For some reason, the Japanese like putting their reactors in giant armoured bozes, one inside the other.

 

[Red Albatross]

This. If I hear one more person mention a "Japanese Chernobyl," I'm going to punch them right in the teeth.

What if Japan was to conquer Ukraine?

[A nuclear power plant can go critical and once it does, 'pulling the plug' doesn't work. The reactor has to be cooled down otherwise it'll escalate to a critical temperature and melt down, then you'll get similar results to Chernobyl.

The reactor is supposed to be critical, it's part of the normal function of the facility.

If you have a core meltdown, the core melts down. Hence the name. It then flows into a specially made drain and sits there. The reactor is henceforth useless. The Japanese opposition party condemns the government because it'll cost the taxpayers a fortune to build another one, and stands a much better chance of winning the next election.

For some reason, the Japanese like putting their reactors in giant armoured bozes, one inside the other.

The design of the Fukushima plant is actually an old General Electric BWR plant design.

If Japan conquers the Ukraine and inherits Chernobyl, I'll wash down my words with a bottle of Tabasco sauce.

 

[Unesh52]

snip

No, no, sorry, I must not have been very clear. I was trying to point out the good qualities of a particular practice on an otherwise noxious and inappropriate forum, because I was about to do it myself. By "lurk more," I was telling you to look back over the preceding posts so you would not make comments that had already been addressed. "Newfags" was just a jab at your relatively low post count, and it was mostly directed at the other guy. I was being ironic for the most part, but I genuinely meant the message I was presenting.

And that message is that the effects of Chernobyl, despite being the worst in history, had far more limited damage than was popularly reported, to the point of being rather underwhelming. And, though you have rebutted this point, Chernobyl is not an apt comparison because modern reactors aren't built the same way.

But since you did elaborate I now get to tell you just how wrong you are about the whole damn process:

A nuclear power plant can go critical

It can indeed. Criticality is a measure of the acceleration of the fission process, and it is determined by mass and structure. To make a long story short, the most efficient shape for sustained chain reaction is a sphere, so the fuel is shaped like that and criticality is only dependent on mass in practice. If the fuel is at a mass that causes the reaction to happen such that the rate of fission is constant, the fuel is said to have critical mass, and the temperature of the fuel remains constant. A sub-critical mass would have a slowing rate of reaction and a decreasing temperature, while a super-critical mass would have a rising rate of reaction and an increasing temperature. Actually, reactor cores contain many tiny balls of slightly super-critical masses of fuel, arranged into cylindrical rods. It is necessary that they be super-critical because if the masses were critical there would be no way to raise the temperature and the energy output of the reactor. This process is controlled by the uncreatively named "control rods," which are rods of a material that absorbs the sub-atomic particles driving the reaction. When the control rods are inserted all the way, all of the particles driving the reaction are absorbed, and the reaction stops. By raising and lowering the rods, the reactor core can function as a sub-critical, critical, or super-critical mass, allowing the operators to control the temperature.

"Critical" has nothing to do with the capacity of the reactor to blow up. Hollywood just thought "critical mass" sounded vaguely scary and sciencey enough to warrant putting it in sci-fi flicks.

and once it does, 'pulling the plug' doesn't work. The reactor has to be cooled down otherwise it'll escalate to a critical temperature and melt down

"Pulling the plug" does, in fact, work in modern reactors. By inserting the control rods, the reaction is stopped, and the core begins to cool down. Furthermore, there are numerous safety systems that allow extra coolant to be introduced into the system in an emergency. Meltdowns usually happen when the operators don't realize that the core is getting too hot. The incident at 3 Mile Island, for instance, was a partial meltdown, and was only noticed when the radioactive coolant from the busted coolant line was found leaking into a building adjacent to the reactor; they didn't catch it earlier because some of the monitoring devices had malfunctioned. But the other safety features functioned normally and most of the radioactivity was neatly contained. No injuries, no deaths. But even if the core had melted completely, it would probably have been contained by the reactor chamber, and failing that the 6' thick concrete shell surrounding it.

then you'll get similar results to Chernobyl. Radiation particles can be carried by the wind and spread to surrounding areas, thus it cannot be contained

No, you won't get similar results to Chernobyl. The reactors at Chernobyl produced what is called a positive void coefficient. Don't ask me exactly what that means, because I'm not sure, but the point is that, by inattentiveness of design, inserting the control rods would briefly cause an increase in temperature before cooling the core down. When a steam release valve jammed, the increase in pressure caused an increase in temperature of one of the cores, and inserting the control rods further spiked the temperature, causing the whole top of the reactor to blow off. That's the only reason Chernobyl exploded. Subsequently the graphite reaction moderators caught fire and, being irradiated, sent tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, giving most of the northern hemisphere a sprinkling of rads ("greys" or "sieverts," really). Radioactive solids are just rocks, and are no more likely to be carried by the wind than a boulder; it was the radioactive particles of granite smoke that were carried away. Actually, this isn't even half the story. You can look it up for yourself, but the whole tale is a staggering procession of gross negligence, bad design, human error, and Murphy's law at work.

Modern reactors do not produce positive void coefficients. Hell, old reactors don't do that; those that ever did have since been retrofitted with designs that keep them from doing that. Modern reactors don't have flammable materials in the core. Most western reactors (at least those in the US) have containment domes of concrete so thick they can repel a direct impact from a fully fueled 747, so an explosion isn't a problem. Chernobyl. Cannot. Happen. Again.

And even if it were possible, what happened at Chernobyl wasn't that bad. You can look at some of my other posts for citations and more in depth explanation, but the bottom line is that the area (except for about a single square mile right beside the reactor) is perfectly habitable, and in fact the ecosystem there is flourishing without the humans that were scared off by Greenpeace and the news media tramping all over their shit. Besides 30 deaths, mostly from massive radiation exposure during clean-up at the site (2 were killed in the explosion), and 100 or so injuries, there has been no serious impact to the health of the local populations. In fact, due to all the panic and evacuations (most of which took place after the bulk of the risk of exposure had passed), the local economy suffered, and alcoholism and depression rose -- I even heard there were thousands of needless abortions out of a fear of bearing some kind of mutant baby. Meanwhile, coal burning plants cause thousands of deaths from lung disease and continually contribute billions of tons of CO[sub]2[/sub] to global warming every year, and they're functioning properly.

Another major byproduct of nuclear power plants is nuclear waste which is extremely bio hazardous to all organic matter and takes an extremely long time to degrade.

Now, here you make a valid point. However, while waste is still currently a problem, containment of that waste seems to be pretty effective, and the few leaks there have been haven't been that devastating. More importantly, the latest designs for nuclear reactors are intended to use that very same waste as fuel. There will be waste left over from that, but it will be much less -- and they're even thinking up reactors to use that!

Radiation is still present in Chernobyl and in Japan where America dropped their two atomic weapons. This is why people fear it even though there is a small chance of one going critical, because once it does the effects are disastrous to the environment and long lasting.

Thing about Chernobyl and Japan... people still live there. Both places. And even more interestingly, I can tell you for a fact that there's radiation hanging over your head right now. There are few areas on the planet where there is no radioactivity. Radiation comes from all sorts of natural sources, most significantly radon gas, and the amount of radioactivity can vary by factors of 10 from place to place. As I alluded earlier, the Chernobyl incident covered the entire upper half of the globe in radiation, and I think that traces of that event can be detected everywhere in the northern hemisphere even today. But no one seems too worried about that, now do they? Almost like they didn't even notice... So yes, it is long lasting, but it's a very long lasting something that doesn't need to be worried about.

I trust this answer satisfies you more than my previous one?

Well, no it didn't. And I'm going to be tired in astronomy tomo- this morning, but it was worth it to flaunt my smug self-assurance in your face.

 

[glyphseeker]

well think about say if you trained bears and you got mauled by one and an arm is lost would you be scared of bears for life

eh whatever but it is horrible about what happened

 

[Red Albatross]

Okay I know you want to pretend that nuclear meltdowns aren't a serious issue, but now you just sound silly. Chernonbyl was back on it's feet in months? Are you joking? I've never heard a single source, even those in favor of nuclear power, make such a wildly inaccurate claim. This is one of my major problems with pro-nuclear people. You try and downplay the dangers of nuclear power. This is just setting us up for a major problem. If you're going to support nuclear power, then you need to confront all the problems associated with it. You can't just say "oh it's not that bad". Yeah it's not as dangerous as the media often portrays, but it's a hell of a lot more destructive than what you're claiming.

Second, who gives a shit about how destructive coal plants are? I never said they were clean. I know they are a big problem as well, but that doesn't mean nuclear is any better. And at least coal doesn't produce wastes that are hazardous for thousands of years.

Last I heard the majority of US government energy investment goes into coal, natural gas, oil, and ethanol. That's to be expected, however nuclear power does receive a decent chunk of it. Even if the amount of funding nuclear receives is small compared to the others, it's still way more than the pitiful amount that renewable energy gets.

In addressing number 1, the plan you're referring to is a wreck. I assume you're talking about Yucca mountain, that planned storage sight for the vast majority of "high level wastes" in the US. Well Yucca mountain, despite over 20 years of preparation, was deemed unsafe and shut down by Obama. This was considered the ideal sight at one point, yet despite all the time and money pumped into it it ultimately was not up to par. So no, storing nuclear waste is still a major issue. IF there's some other "plan" you're referring to, please tell me what it is as I didn't hear anything about when researching this all a few weeks ago. As for U-235 waste reactors, I don't know why you'd bother bringing those up because they still produce hazardous wastes. The idea that nuclear reprocessing somehow magically gets rid of all the waste is incorrect. Granted there's a lot less of the waste, but it still exists.

As for 2, you're correct that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar require more investment to become practical on a large scale. However they are by no means a pipe dream, as I have heard some people claim. If the government seriously invested in renewable, by say taking away all the useless funding going into nuclear, we'd see some significant progress. Instead a surprisingly large amount of people want to see us pursue nuclear, even though it a nonrenewable energy source that produces incredibly hazardous waste. We'd get 100 years of power before running out of uranium and having to deal with this all again, along with a ton of nuclear waste to go along with it. Excuse me for not seeing the point in doing this.

Yeah, instead lets switch over to nuclear and do the same exact thing over uranium! Because it's not renewable and will at most last 100 years.

If you're going to support "renewable energy," you need to confront all the problems associated with it. See what I did there? I don't mean to come off as snarky, because this is a great discussion. But, don't just thrust "renewable energy" in without following your own advice.

First off, I want you to look at the fatality statistics directly resulting from the production of energy. It's a dangerous premise no matter how it's produced. Producing energy is about channeling destructive and terrible forces, whether they be explosive fossil fuels, giant walls of water, or the power of the strong nuclear force. Coal plants, statistically, are much more dangerous to work in than nuclear plants. And, that's in flagrant disregard of the danger that the coal miners put themselves in to get it. People die over oil every day. And yes, every so often, people will get irradiated because of accidents at nuclear plants. It's an inevitability that things will go wrong. The chain of events leading up to this distress at the Fukushima plant was pretty much absolutely everything going wrong. At once. The only thing that could have made it worse was a Godzilla and Mothra battle right on top of the plant.

The fact remains that, with modern technology and advancements that are currently in the development phase, nuclear power is the cleanest and safest way to provide large-scale power generation. Note that I said large-scale. I love solar power. But right now, it's too inefficient for commercial needs. Perhaps, in the future, I hope that will change. Wind power is an absolute bust. It's inefficient, unreliable, takes up a lot of space, and we're slowly starting to see the negative environmental effects.

Modern and upcoming reactor designs are ridiculously safe, requiring absolutely no human or electronic input to shut themselves down in the event of a disaster. The U.S. has always built nearly impervious containment vessels around our reactors. Our nuclear industry is one of the most stringently regulated industries in history. Three Mile Island is often referred to as the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history. No one was hurt or exposed to harmful* levels of radiation. That's what passes for a disaster in the U.S. nuclear power industry (SL-1 was much worse, but it was under U.S. Army control and didn't get a whole lot of attention at the time, quite a gruesome tale - modern media would absolutely salivate over it).

As for your comment about uranium running out - yes, it will. But uranium is not the only fissile material. We've had breeder reactors for years - they produce more nuclear fuel than they consume. In practical terms, nuclear energy is infinitely renewable. As for the waste concerns, even I can brainstorm a simple concept for easily ridding ourselves of it. Load spent fuel rods into a massive coilgun, fire into the sun. Since I'm just random guy sitting at a computer, I absolutely know that I'm not the only one to think of that. The engineering is just out of our reach at the moment, but it won't be long before we get there.

I admit that since my future job prospects are looking grimmer by the day, I might be a little touchy about the subject. I hope I haven't come across as combative or belligerent.

*What one person considers harmful may be entirely inconsequential to another, some people freak over having to get x-rays, meanwhile people who fly frequently gets exposed to many times the "normal" amount. Also, all radiation is not created equal and method of exposure matters a great deal.

 

[Unesh52]

See scientists and engineers who were derpy enough to use shoddy construction and unsafe materials. Yeah lets use graphite to cool the core. WAIT GRAPHITE INCREASES HEAT. HERP DERP.

And no there is no chance of the cores in Japan going critical.

1. They are fission plants. They dont even have the right type of uranium or enough of it to make it go up.
2. Hi, this is the ocean. We're really cold. We're just gonna mosey on into the core k?

Granted it'll ruined the material forever but the plants were due of decommissioning. In two weeks.

All this herpy derpy about nuclear power is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD is stupid. We have the ability to use it safely. And we do.

But nooo, lets shut them all down so we can continue to burn our fossil fuels and eventually kill each other over the last oil and coal deposits. Fucking idiots.

Uh... See my last post to light. #358. [sub][sub][sub]Can't believe we're on the same side...[/sub][/sub][/sub]

The graphite wasn't the coolant, it was the moderator, and it doesn't... er, "increase heat" (maybe you meant it insulates? I don't know if it does that either...), it just caught fire.

If the reactor cores couldn't go critical they wouldn't be very successful reactors. They actually need to be super-critical, slightly, for the process to work. The controls rods would bring them back to a critical state, meaning that they would remain at a constant temperature. But if you mean they won't explode, you're right. Though I would point out that atom bombs work through fission as well.

And to the last point -- you do realize that nuclear fuel is a limited resource just like fossil fuels, right? Eventually we will run out. That doesn't mean nuclear power isn't useful, but you can't criticize oil for being finite and then suggest Uranium as an obvious solution... but maybe you just meant that with all the new ideas for fuel, we have plenty of time, right?