The world as a whole needs to find a viable long term solution for reducing the amount of radioactive wastes from nuke plants and more realistic methods of dealing with the waste they do make.
The current technology used around the world was chosen in part to provide weapons grade materials for the military. Take those requirements away and other technologies become available that can produce as much energy with less waste.
Some of these alternate technologies have been around for decades, but the US government always short funded the research because they failed to meet the weapons source standard.
Discussion on:
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
Posted by xxyl
25th Apr 2011
Top
Rated
Rated
At Last, a Sensible Article on Nuclear.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
25th Apr 2011
Just
In
In
New Umbrella Terms needed: NU2CLEAR and NuGen2 (for Thorium & IFR)
Posted by evofx
19th May 2011
Show:
+3
Votes
Waste is the issue.
Posted by Hates Idiots
25th Apr 2011
+3
Votes
We already have a solution to the waste, but President Clinton cancelled it
The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project created a nuclear reactor that was fueled from the waste (actinides and DU) from existing nuclear plants.
We can easily power our country for over 1,000 years just on the waste we already have.
Bill Clinton canceled it in 1994, saying that the project was "unnecessary."
Dan Rather Reports recently did a story on the technology (see "Power Play" on iTunes).
We can easily power our country for over 1,000 years just on the waste we already have.
Bill Clinton canceled it in 1994, saying that the project was "unnecessary."
Dan Rather Reports recently did a story on the technology (see "Power Play" on iTunes).
Posted by Steve Kirsch
Updated - 29th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
Because ?there are no better alternatives available? has to be the lamest justification possible. We have been able to achieve miracles by refining existing technologies--put the resources into developing better alternatives, for god's sake. As long as we have no idea how to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe manner, nuclear power is unsustainable. And the consequences of nuclear "accidents" are horrific. As a species, we never seen to learn from our mistakes--have we already forgotten Chernobyl?
Posted by kdoylekeenan
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Re:RE:Why neculear power still matters
First, we don't need to develop "better" alternatives when nuclear power IS the best option.
Second, you can't blame Chernobyl on the U.S. The worst U.S. nuclear reactor disaster was Three Mile Island, and the radiation exposure from the radioactive steam released has been calculated to effect .05 people. The leak was so small that more people get cancer from weeding their garden without wearing sunscreen than they do from the Three Mile Island "disaster".
Second, you can't blame Chernobyl on the U.S. The worst U.S. nuclear reactor disaster was Three Mile Island, and the radiation exposure from the radioactive steam released has been calculated to effect .05 people. The leak was so small that more people get cancer from weeding their garden without wearing sunscreen than they do from the Three Mile Island "disaster".
Posted by sethhc
13th May 2011
0
Votes
Broadcast Power
We use chemical energy to make vehicles move, we store a lot of that energy in the vehicles. We generate electricity and put it on a grid to be distributed through power lines. There is another way that is theoretically possible and that is to broadcast power, similar to broadcast communications but sending power instead of signals.
Tesla was working on broadcast power but was not able to develope broadcast power. Tesla had a lot of criticism that reduced funding and others have not been able to reproduce his broadcast power experiments; the result was that no one thinks that broadcast power is possible or practical.
What broadcast power would do is eliminate the need to store fuel in tanks to make a vehicle move. The vehicle would require less energy to move without having to move the weight of fuel as well. Home power would not need electrical lines because the appliances could run off broadcast power.
Assuming broadcast power can be done, it would probably use the same sources of energy we use now, including nuclear. It may be worth studying to see if broadcast power is possible and whether it is practical. It could also be more efficient for global energy use.
Tesla was working on broadcast power but was not able to develope broadcast power. Tesla had a lot of criticism that reduced funding and others have not been able to reproduce his broadcast power experiments; the result was that no one thinks that broadcast power is possible or practical.
What broadcast power would do is eliminate the need to store fuel in tanks to make a vehicle move. The vehicle would require less energy to move without having to move the weight of fuel as well. Home power would not need electrical lines because the appliances could run off broadcast power.
Assuming broadcast power can be done, it would probably use the same sources of energy we use now, including nuclear. It may be worth studying to see if broadcast power is possible and whether it is practical. It could also be more efficient for global energy use.
Posted by sboverie
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
You Don't Understand Tesla!!
Tesla didn't have a free power system. He had a HF power broadcast. If you tuned just right, you could receive power. He picked a frequency that resonated with the earth, so he could build up a very high signal strength. Yes, he did run an electric car on it, from more than 50 miles away. But, he had to put the power in before he could take it out. The system also caused arcing in large metal framed buildings. We would have to redesign all buildings of more than five stories to prevent arcing before we really use Tesla's system. That will never happen. Too many skyscrapers, power plants, manufacturing facilities, Aircraft carriers, etc. Also, the frequencies are in commercial use now. A power transmitter would totally drown out any other signal.
How Tesla did it is not a secret. But, it isn't something that we could really use now.
How Tesla did it is not a secret. But, it isn't something that we could really use now.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
29th Apr 2011
+2
Votes
Quickly and succinctly:
It's not competitive and not needed.
1) Free market has not and cannot support it--too many liabilities, too big, too complex, too risky in its current forms.
2) Other renewables are free market supported, affordable and a good investment. As a result, true renewables jumped from supplying 2% of new energy growth in the US in 2004 to 55% in 2009.
3) Nuclear power is too risky of a technology: it's so unforgiving that a failure of a backup energy supply at Fukushima AFTER the nukes were shut down ended up destroying 4 out of 6 reactors and costing 20-100 Billion dollars. Who wants to take on risks like that, even with the Price Anderson Act limitation on liability?
4) New nukes--and old ones for that matter--have a consistent history of huge cost overruns. And what do you think will happen to the already-sky-high 8 billion dollar pricetag of the new nukes planned in Texas and Georgia after Fukushima?
5) It is far cheaper for a utility to invest in negawatts, i.e. in saving energy and promoting energy efficiency as a means to meet its future needs, rather than investing in a new power plant. This gives them time for renewable energy technologies to mature and so when it's time for existing power plants to retire, low carbon alternatives will be even more affordable.
6) Centralized power plants are like mainframe computers: no longer necessary. Just as the desktop/laptop/smart phone sequence is infinitely more adaptable, affordable and versatile than the mainframe, so it is with energy. New buildings and subdivisions can generate their own power needs through locally controlled, decentralized power sources, added to the existing grid in modular ways that the transmission system knows how to adapt to, and the grid is getting smarter and smarter every day.
Will nuclear ever be relevant? Who knows what the future will bring? Some folks are enamored with thorium, which eliminates many of the proliferation/contamination/accident potential, tho not completely. One thing is for certain: nobody in their right minds should be trying to build more of the water cooled reactors, complete with adjacent spent fuel pools. Time to move on. The same amount of money can and should be spent much more productively pursuing other energy paths.
For an interesting summary, check out Amory Lovins' Economist magazine article:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-03_EconomistDebate
1) Free market has not and cannot support it--too many liabilities, too big, too complex, too risky in its current forms.
2) Other renewables are free market supported, affordable and a good investment. As a result, true renewables jumped from supplying 2% of new energy growth in the US in 2004 to 55% in 2009.
3) Nuclear power is too risky of a technology: it's so unforgiving that a failure of a backup energy supply at Fukushima AFTER the nukes were shut down ended up destroying 4 out of 6 reactors and costing 20-100 Billion dollars. Who wants to take on risks like that, even with the Price Anderson Act limitation on liability?
4) New nukes--and old ones for that matter--have a consistent history of huge cost overruns. And what do you think will happen to the already-sky-high 8 billion dollar pricetag of the new nukes planned in Texas and Georgia after Fukushima?
5) It is far cheaper for a utility to invest in negawatts, i.e. in saving energy and promoting energy efficiency as a means to meet its future needs, rather than investing in a new power plant. This gives them time for renewable energy technologies to mature and so when it's time for existing power plants to retire, low carbon alternatives will be even more affordable.
6) Centralized power plants are like mainframe computers: no longer necessary. Just as the desktop/laptop/smart phone sequence is infinitely more adaptable, affordable and versatile than the mainframe, so it is with energy. New buildings and subdivisions can generate their own power needs through locally controlled, decentralized power sources, added to the existing grid in modular ways that the transmission system knows how to adapt to, and the grid is getting smarter and smarter every day.
Will nuclear ever be relevant? Who knows what the future will bring? Some folks are enamored with thorium, which eliminates many of the proliferation/contamination/accident potential, tho not completely. One thing is for certain: nobody in their right minds should be trying to build more of the water cooled reactors, complete with adjacent spent fuel pools. Time to move on. The same amount of money can and should be spent much more productively pursuing other energy paths.
For an interesting summary, check out Amory Lovins' Economist magazine article:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-03_EconomistDebate
Posted by klassman6
25th Apr 2011
+2
Votes
It is better to pay attention to reality than Amory Lovin's arguments
In Asia, they build nuclear power on time and on budget, for under $2 per watt. There is nothing inherent uneconomical about that.
If it were not for government subsidies, solar power would be non-competitive.
If it were not for government subsidies, solar power would be non-competitive.
Posted by Steve Kirsch
29th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Don't you know that killing the messenger....
...doesn't change the content of the message? Show me what the subsidies on the Asian nuclear power are, please, and you'll realize that the solar subsidies are paltry in comparison.
The reality is exactly what Amory is talking about, by the way: utilities and investors are lining up to invest in solar and wind compared to putting their money into the behemoths of new coal, carbon sequestration technologies and nuclear. And it's a simple financial calculation based on returns, on the ability to make affordable electricity, which nuclear and new coal simply have been unable to do in the US---even with their subsidies, which are much larger than solar and wind.
The reality is exactly what Amory is talking about, by the way: utilities and investors are lining up to invest in solar and wind compared to putting their money into the behemoths of new coal, carbon sequestration technologies and nuclear. And it's a simple financial calculation based on returns, on the ability to make affordable electricity, which nuclear and new coal simply have been unable to do in the US---even with their subsidies, which are much larger than solar and wind.
Posted by klassman6
30th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Govt subsidies
The fed govt underwrites the nuke industry's insurance. No private company will. The industry would not exist except for this.
Posted by mendy11954
13th May 2011
+1
Vote
Solar and Wind Subsidies
When the feds held up the loan guarantees for solar and wind, their respective industries came unglued until Congress renewed them. Solar and wind would not exist either if the feds didn't guarantee their loans. See link below:
http://www.environmental-finance.com/news/view/1708
http://www.environmental-finance.com/news/view/1708
Posted by barryschaeffer
17th May 2011
+1
Vote
Amen to that klass...
One thing is for certain: nobody in their right minds should be trying to build more of the water cooled reactors, complete with adjacent spent fuel pools. Time to move on.
We need newer technology if nuclear is to be relevent.
We need newer technology if nuclear is to be relevent.
Posted by Hates Idiots
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Alternative Nuclear processes
Nobody mentions the best alternative nuclear cycle - Thorium. The Thorium cycle has been known about since the Manhattan project, but was abandoned because it couldn't be used to make plutonium for weapons. The Thorium cycle also doesn't run away because it needs an outside neutron source - stop the supply, & the reaction stops also. Another benefit is that Thorium is much more plentiful than Uranium, so its cheaper.
Posted by Starman35
28th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Pebble bed reactors
Pebble bed reactors could be another safer nuclear plant option. It can use an inert gas (such as nitrogen or helium) to circulate in the core and to spin the turbines. You can use a gas that cannot become radioactive, so a cooling leak will not be radioactive. Also, you don't get meltdowns since the reaction is self-limiting. As the core temperature rises, the reactor power decreases (and the temperature goes down). Each "pebble" is also stable enough that disposal could be easier too.
Posted by pinjoh541@...
Updated - 29th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
the IFR is more proven than the LFTR
The IFR is more proven than thorium reactors. We should do those first.
The Gen IV International Forum did a 2 year study of all the reactor designs.
IFR was rated #1.
How about we start with the top rated design and build it?
After all, it was OUR design and we already put $10 billion of R&D into it.
We'd have a fast reactor running today if BIll Clinton hadn't canceled the project.
The Gen IV International Forum did a 2 year study of all the reactor designs.
IFR was rated #1.
How about we start with the top rated design and build it?
After all, it was OUR design and we already put $10 billion of R&D into it.
We'd have a fast reactor running today if BIll Clinton hadn't canceled the project.
Posted by Steve Kirsch
29th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
@sboverie..
I heard this weekend that the FBI confiscated Teslas personal papers from his apartment when he died in 1943. All of his research documentation and personal diaries are still held as national secrets.
Posted by Hates Idiots
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Can a source be attributed? How can anyone make sense of the assertion?
It would be great to read of a source for this assertion, otherwise it isn't worth even mentioning. It lends nothing to the conversation - sorry!
Posted by Czarembo
29th Apr 2011
+7
Votes
At Last, a Sensible Article on Nuclear.
@kdoylekeenan, The Article is right, there are no better options available.
There is a current worldwide famine, caused by the rage for biofuels in Europe in the US. The real reason for the Arab uprisings is hunger. When given the choice between food and fuel, the first world picked fuel. The rest of the world sensibly picks food.
Hydro power is maxed out in the US and Europe. There are no major locations for large dams that will not cause severe damage.
Solar for large plants causes a great deal of environmental damage too. Small solar, on rooftops, and over parking lots is doable, but will never be more than a minor contributor to total energy needs. I live in Arizona, and when I see the periodic proposals to build a lot of large solar plants here to power the US, I have to laugh. Those plans ignore several mountain ranges, and building the plants would destroy several thousand species of plants and animals. The EPA would never permit it. Neither would the Sierra Club.
Wind power kills a lot of birds, bats and insects. It also affects climate. Taking power out of the wind, slows the wind. That also slows wind transport of rain and warmth/coolness. Recent scientific papers I have seen are warning of wind/wave/ocean current power plans and the truly massive global climate change they would cause. There are limits to how much energy can be safely extracted from these sources without turning places like the American Great Plains or the Amazon basin into deserts like the Sahara.
Fusion still doesn't work, after 80 years of trying. There has never been a fusion reactor that produces enough energy to run the reactor. We should keep trying, but I wouldn't count on any technology until 10 years after it works. It still doesn't work.
Orbital solar should be an option in 15 years. But, it still doesn't work. The US Military wants to get a working unit in 5 years or so. We know how, but there is a lot more to learn. Still, there is a lot of room to put it there. Space after all is big, as the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy notes. There is lots of sunshine that never hits the Earth. But, it will take a century for this kind of thing to make a major contribution.
Advanced combustion of coal, oil and natural gas can reduce the waste products, but the waste products are still there. Carbon sequestration just delays the impact. Everything leaks. Costs are going up for these sources too. Even if we could deal with the CO2, we get the CO2 by removing O2 from the biosphere. After a while, that will be an insurmountable problem.
So, that leaves Nuclear Power as the only option. This is the point of the referenced Article. You have a problem with current Nuclear Plants. I can understand that. The plants we have are 60 to 70 years old. They use technologies developed during the 1950's. We should be able to do better. We can do better.
You appear to be worried about the long lived 'waste'. These long lived wastes are really unburned fuel. A good design would burn this fuel. It is called 'reprocessing'. The French have been doing this since the late 1960's. The US talked about it, but never has done it. Just by changing the temperature the reactor operates at, the unburned fuel can be burned. That would require a different reactor design, and perhaps different materials during construction. The US is not ready to start building advanced, modern reactors yet.
You seem worried about the Japanese reactor safety. The reactor was designed to withstand a 7 point earthquake. It rode through a 9 point earthquake, so while damaged, it withstood 100 times the earthquake that was expected when it was built. It was not designed however to withstand a tsunami. It could have been. There has been a lot of press about the future danger from the leaks. But, not much coverage of the very real damage done to the area by the earthquake and tsunami. They are easily 10,000 times bigger than the danger from the 4 reactors at Fukishima. As this site reported a week or so ago, the accident has released enough radiation to raise exposure in an area withing 40 Kilometers (about 25 miles) around the plant to about twice the natural background level. that means that if you live there, you might get enough exposure to make you sick in about 200 years. Inside the plant, it's another story, of course.
Chernobyl, is another story. Our lesson there is that corrugated steel doesn't make an adequate containment vessel for a working reactor.
However, power is always dangerous. A large coal plant puts out as much radioactive material over a 20 year span as has been leaked by the four Fukishima reactors to date. Radiation is all around you, and always was. We make reactors work by concentrating natural radioactive materials, and manipulating conditions to speed up the decay. a reactor works by releasing a million years of natural radiation every month. with some work, we could use most of the highly radioactive by-products as fuel too. many of the rest are valuable for other uses too.
There is a current worldwide famine, caused by the rage for biofuels in Europe in the US. The real reason for the Arab uprisings is hunger. When given the choice between food and fuel, the first world picked fuel. The rest of the world sensibly picks food.
Hydro power is maxed out in the US and Europe. There are no major locations for large dams that will not cause severe damage.
Solar for large plants causes a great deal of environmental damage too. Small solar, on rooftops, and over parking lots is doable, but will never be more than a minor contributor to total energy needs. I live in Arizona, and when I see the periodic proposals to build a lot of large solar plants here to power the US, I have to laugh. Those plans ignore several mountain ranges, and building the plants would destroy several thousand species of plants and animals. The EPA would never permit it. Neither would the Sierra Club.
Wind power kills a lot of birds, bats and insects. It also affects climate. Taking power out of the wind, slows the wind. That also slows wind transport of rain and warmth/coolness. Recent scientific papers I have seen are warning of wind/wave/ocean current power plans and the truly massive global climate change they would cause. There are limits to how much energy can be safely extracted from these sources without turning places like the American Great Plains or the Amazon basin into deserts like the Sahara.
Fusion still doesn't work, after 80 years of trying. There has never been a fusion reactor that produces enough energy to run the reactor. We should keep trying, but I wouldn't count on any technology until 10 years after it works. It still doesn't work.
Orbital solar should be an option in 15 years. But, it still doesn't work. The US Military wants to get a working unit in 5 years or so. We know how, but there is a lot more to learn. Still, there is a lot of room to put it there. Space after all is big, as the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy notes. There is lots of sunshine that never hits the Earth. But, it will take a century for this kind of thing to make a major contribution.
Advanced combustion of coal, oil and natural gas can reduce the waste products, but the waste products are still there. Carbon sequestration just delays the impact. Everything leaks. Costs are going up for these sources too. Even if we could deal with the CO2, we get the CO2 by removing O2 from the biosphere. After a while, that will be an insurmountable problem.
So, that leaves Nuclear Power as the only option. This is the point of the referenced Article. You have a problem with current Nuclear Plants. I can understand that. The plants we have are 60 to 70 years old. They use technologies developed during the 1950's. We should be able to do better. We can do better.
You appear to be worried about the long lived 'waste'. These long lived wastes are really unburned fuel. A good design would burn this fuel. It is called 'reprocessing'. The French have been doing this since the late 1960's. The US talked about it, but never has done it. Just by changing the temperature the reactor operates at, the unburned fuel can be burned. That would require a different reactor design, and perhaps different materials during construction. The US is not ready to start building advanced, modern reactors yet.
You seem worried about the Japanese reactor safety. The reactor was designed to withstand a 7 point earthquake. It rode through a 9 point earthquake, so while damaged, it withstood 100 times the earthquake that was expected when it was built. It was not designed however to withstand a tsunami. It could have been. There has been a lot of press about the future danger from the leaks. But, not much coverage of the very real damage done to the area by the earthquake and tsunami. They are easily 10,000 times bigger than the danger from the 4 reactors at Fukishima. As this site reported a week or so ago, the accident has released enough radiation to raise exposure in an area withing 40 Kilometers (about 25 miles) around the plant to about twice the natural background level. that means that if you live there, you might get enough exposure to make you sick in about 200 years. Inside the plant, it's another story, of course.
Chernobyl, is another story. Our lesson there is that corrugated steel doesn't make an adequate containment vessel for a working reactor.
However, power is always dangerous. A large coal plant puts out as much radioactive material over a 20 year span as has been leaked by the four Fukishima reactors to date. Radiation is all around you, and always was. We make reactors work by concentrating natural radioactive materials, and manipulating conditions to speed up the decay. a reactor works by releasing a million years of natural radiation every month. with some work, we could use most of the highly radioactive by-products as fuel too. many of the rest are valuable for other uses too.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Cutting corners cost nuclear energy far more than anything else
Sad to say, but the nuclear industry (and now people) will bear the cost of cutting corners. Japan, courtesy of General Electric, isn't the only nation to permit the construction of nuclear facilities in tsunami zones. In California, one can see nuclear facilities in these zones as well . Look at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon plants. They are tsunami inundation zones and on seismically active plates.
Incredibly poor planning, I'd say. So how is the industry going to address these issues? Id say how this is done will say far more about the future of nuclear energy than anything else. And I've been a proponent of nuclear energy!
Incredibly poor planning, I'd say. So how is the industry going to address these issues? Id say how this is done will say far more about the future of nuclear energy than anything else. And I've been a proponent of nuclear energy!
Posted by Czarembo
29th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Check the facts on San Onofre
San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are near major faults, but I am not at all convinced that they are vulnerable to tsunamis.
Posted by barryschaeffer
17th May 2011
+1
Vote
New Umbrella Terms needed: NU2CLEAR and NuGen2 (for Thorium & IFR)
Thanks @YetAnotherBlob for the informative comment. It justifies itself as a miniarticle for the information in contains. It really show how well-learned you are.
However, I am afraid many of the readers here have missed out on the hidden nuggets of wisdom. Maybe someone (lika an editor at smartplanet), should expand and explain the terms, or the background facts (such as how the Ricther Scale works), that you have taken its understanding among the public for granted.
Along these same lines, be it IFR or Thorium cycle, the general human psyche do not care for scary names that carry an old stigma. Look at this problem from a pyschological perspective. Give these technologies a NEW UMBRELLA NAME. Something like "Nu2clear" or "Nu Gen 2" Technology. History has shown us that human beings need to be rushed into a new era via symbolic totems.
(And form the proverbial carrot and sticks: Begin to market and subsidize these "NuGen2 technologies" as we outlaw classic "nuclear technologies". Every switch involves labour pains, but always better to move than to suffer afterwards.)
However, I am afraid many of the readers here have missed out on the hidden nuggets of wisdom. Maybe someone (lika an editor at smartplanet), should expand and explain the terms, or the background facts (such as how the Ricther Scale works), that you have taken its understanding among the public for granted.
Along these same lines, be it IFR or Thorium cycle, the general human psyche do not care for scary names that carry an old stigma. Look at this problem from a pyschological perspective. Give these technologies a NEW UMBRELLA NAME. Something like "Nu2clear" or "Nu Gen 2" Technology. History has shown us that human beings need to be rushed into a new era via symbolic totems.
(And form the proverbial carrot and sticks: Begin to market and subsidize these "NuGen2 technologies" as we outlaw classic "nuclear technologies". Every switch involves labour pains, but always better to move than to suffer afterwards.)
Posted by evofx
19th May 2011
+3
Votes
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
Thorium Reactors: Cheap, efficient, with little radioactive waste, and meltdown-proof.
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-may-alleviate-fears/6494/
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/china-to-develop-a-greener-nuclear-reactor/6205/
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-may-alleviate-fears/6494/
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/china-to-develop-a-greener-nuclear-reactor/6205/
Posted by mheartwood
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
Too many people today were born too late to remember Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. As recent events reveal, it's not a matter of if an accident happens (or the spent fuel makes it into the hands of the terrorists), it's when! No energy is worth the price we'll have to pay in the face of an accident or attack.
I'd like to see what this guy would say if they built one in his backyard. They have to put the plants and spent fuel somewhere!
All this talk permits us to avoid the real question - voluntary population control. Even nuclear power won't save us from overpopulating the planet (just make it easier!), and if we could reduce the number of humans on the planet, we wouldn't even need to consider something as dangerous as nuclear power.
Nature has a way of balancing things on her own, but we might not like result. There's no guarantee that the equilibrium she finds will be conducive to human life!
I'd like to see what this guy would say if they built one in his backyard. They have to put the plants and spent fuel somewhere!
All this talk permits us to avoid the real question - voluntary population control. Even nuclear power won't save us from overpopulating the planet (just make it easier!), and if we could reduce the number of humans on the planet, we wouldn't even need to consider something as dangerous as nuclear power.
Nature has a way of balancing things on her own, but we might not like result. There's no guarantee that the equilibrium she finds will be conducive to human life!
Posted by omb00900@...
Updated - 29th Apr 2011
-1
Votes
@hatesIdiots
Thanks for that bit of information. Tesla was the one who figured out polyphase AC to run motors, he also was a big influence in getting the US on AC power. Tesla made many pronouncements such as making death rays and broadcast power; those pronouncements may have been why the FBI confiscated Tesla's documents.
Posted by sboverie
25th Apr 2011
+4
Votes
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
Its not nuclear power thats dangerous, its reactor design. Obviously
the fuel needs to be transported and stored safely, but... so do most
(all?) fuel types. What we need is a revolution in reactor design, and,
surprisingly, theres a lot of them in the waiting for funding.
the fuel needs to be transported and stored safely, but... so do most
(all?) fuel types. What we need is a revolution in reactor design, and,
surprisingly, theres a lot of them in the waiting for funding.
Posted by Vailhem@...
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
This is basically a technical problem with a thick layer of politics. The main problem with the nuclear industry is dealing with the waste. The solutions for waste management are digging a big hole and burying the waste or vitrification which turns the waste into glasslike material. Both solutions may work the best than one over the other.
Most of the long term depositories have problems ranging from ground instability to areas with a lot of faults prone to earthquakes. Vitrification can lock up the hazardous materials so that one can hold them without being contaminated. Storing vitrified wastes in places like Yucca Mountain can decrease the environmental problems.
The current practice of storing spent fuel in cooling pools waiting for a permanent disposal method is the least safe alternative as we have seen with the tsunami damaged reactors with the cooling pools above the reactors. Getting a reasonable solution for the disposal of reactive wastes is just one problem. Another problem is dealing with decommissioned reactors.
Nuclear power is probably going to be around for a long while. New reactor designs may lower the risks of accidents and using other reactive materials may increase the safety of reactors. The costs to design, build and operate a nuclear facility is still pretty high and has never delivered on the "Too cheap to meter" promise.
Still, while neither cheap or clean, nuclear power can compete with fossile fuels that are becoming less cheap and clean. It is a trade off from one kind of enviromental contamination for another.
Most of the long term depositories have problems ranging from ground instability to areas with a lot of faults prone to earthquakes. Vitrification can lock up the hazardous materials so that one can hold them without being contaminated. Storing vitrified wastes in places like Yucca Mountain can decrease the environmental problems.
The current practice of storing spent fuel in cooling pools waiting for a permanent disposal method is the least safe alternative as we have seen with the tsunami damaged reactors with the cooling pools above the reactors. Getting a reasonable solution for the disposal of reactive wastes is just one problem. Another problem is dealing with decommissioned reactors.
Nuclear power is probably going to be around for a long while. New reactor designs may lower the risks of accidents and using other reactive materials may increase the safety of reactors. The costs to design, build and operate a nuclear facility is still pretty high and has never delivered on the "Too cheap to meter" promise.
Still, while neither cheap or clean, nuclear power can compete with fossile fuels that are becoming less cheap and clean. It is a trade off from one kind of enviromental contamination for another.
Posted by sboverie
25th Apr 2011
+2
Votes
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
The shortcoming to nuclear power is the shortage of fissionable material. There is not enough mine-able material to replace more that 20% of current power needs, much less future needs.
Posted by brfabnet
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
The ignorance spouted here by the anti-nuclear power crowd are even more mind boggling than usual.
#3. sboverie 04/25/11: Assuming broadcast power can be done, it would probably use the same sources of energy we use now, including nuclear. Er...so your wonderful new solution isnt a souce of energy at all, just a tramsmission system! Dont confuse the two. Dont waste everybody's time. Especially with a completely non-existent technology that would defy physics.
#4. klassman6 04/25/11 ...true renewables jumped from supplying 2% of new energy growth in the US in 2004 to 55% in 2009.
. What weasel words, Klassman, as you well know. Shame on you! The clue is in the word GROWTH. Many readers will have read this hurriedly to mean that renewables were supplying 55% of the US power in 2009 whereas the truth is far different isnt it? How about you responding right here on this blog with the tiny percentage of power across the whole of the US currently supplied by renewables in 2011 . Please take this as a test of your integrity. Or would it be just too painful to confront the truth?
It is far cheaper for a utility to invest in negawatts, i.e. in saving energy and promoting energy efficiency as a means to meet its future needs, rather than investing in a new power plant. Oh yeah? A what insignificant percentage reduction is this going to make, offset as it will be by ever oncreasing industrial and consumer demand over the coming years?
#3. sboverie 04/25/11: Assuming broadcast power can be done, it would probably use the same sources of energy we use now, including nuclear. Er...so your wonderful new solution isnt a souce of energy at all, just a tramsmission system! Dont confuse the two. Dont waste everybody's time. Especially with a completely non-existent technology that would defy physics.
#4. klassman6 04/25/11 ...true renewables jumped from supplying 2% of new energy growth in the US in 2004 to 55% in 2009.
. What weasel words, Klassman, as you well know. Shame on you! The clue is in the word GROWTH. Many readers will have read this hurriedly to mean that renewables were supplying 55% of the US power in 2009 whereas the truth is far different isnt it? How about you responding right here on this blog with the tiny percentage of power across the whole of the US currently supplied by renewables in 2011 . Please take this as a test of your integrity. Or would it be just too painful to confront the truth?
It is far cheaper for a utility to invest in negawatts, i.e. in saving energy and promoting energy efficiency as a means to meet its future needs, rather than investing in a new power plant. Oh yeah? A what insignificant percentage reduction is this going to make, offset as it will be by ever oncreasing industrial and consumer demand over the coming years?
Posted by cosserat@...
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
It's interesting to read lines like 'we as a species refuse to learn
from our mistakes' and such emotional appeals, when despite all
its problems, Nuclear power has a track record of working, and
while it's dangerous, so is everything else. Nuclear accidents
COULD kill tens of thousands of people. Dam breaks HAVE killed
tens of thousands of people. Yet why are we not tearing down all
the hydropower.
There's promise in 'alternative' energy but so far they all have
one huge failing, no way to store energy, and huge space
requirements. Yes, with research and funding, some of these
problems can be solved or minimized... but too often, fans and
proponents of these are like guys smitten with a pretty girl they
hardly know: she's so beautiful she just has to be perfect, and
any issues she might have, they could fix if she'd just give them a
chance... Sorry, no one is perfect, and neither is any technology.
It'd be easier to take alternative energy fans more seriously if
they'd take the limitations of their favorite tech more seriously
themselves. In the meantime, nuclear power actually works, on a
large scale. And all the 'promise' in the world can't replace that
track record. Yes, it's 'unfair' that people won't just take that leap
of faith and invest in something that may never work the way you
hope... but trust in anything is built incrementally. That's just how
it goes, pretty girl or power plant.
from our mistakes' and such emotional appeals, when despite all
its problems, Nuclear power has a track record of working, and
while it's dangerous, so is everything else. Nuclear accidents
COULD kill tens of thousands of people. Dam breaks HAVE killed
tens of thousands of people. Yet why are we not tearing down all
the hydropower.
There's promise in 'alternative' energy but so far they all have
one huge failing, no way to store energy, and huge space
requirements. Yes, with research and funding, some of these
problems can be solved or minimized... but too often, fans and
proponents of these are like guys smitten with a pretty girl they
hardly know: she's so beautiful she just has to be perfect, and
any issues she might have, they could fix if she'd just give them a
chance... Sorry, no one is perfect, and neither is any technology.
It'd be easier to take alternative energy fans more seriously if
they'd take the limitations of their favorite tech more seriously
themselves. In the meantime, nuclear power actually works, on a
large scale. And all the 'promise' in the world can't replace that
track record. Yes, it's 'unfair' that people won't just take that leap
of faith and invest in something that may never work the way you
hope... but trust in anything is built incrementally. That's just how
it goes, pretty girl or power plant.
Posted by xxyl
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
@cosserat
I never claimed that it is new technology, just a possible way to distrubute energy. There was also something in Tesla's experiments that seemed to indicate that the energy was coming from the earth as a dynamo but that is another claim by Tesla that would need to be tested.
My point about broadcast power is that a vehicle with a device to receive broadcast power would be more efficient because it does not have to contain its own source of energy in the form of fossil fuels. Tesla claimed that a single transmitter could blanket the globe with broadcast power. His claims are just that until either proven true or false. If Tesla's claims are true, then the reactors can be set be set far away from populations and sensitive environments; which would increase nuclear safety.
My point about broadcast power is that a vehicle with a device to receive broadcast power would be more efficient because it does not have to contain its own source of energy in the form of fossil fuels. Tesla claimed that a single transmitter could blanket the globe with broadcast power. His claims are just that until either proven true or false. If Tesla's claims are true, then the reactors can be set be set far away from populations and sensitive environments; which would increase nuclear safety.
Posted by sboverie
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Tesla wires vs no wires
They could be located far away from population centers anyway by high tension lines. Tesla designed the modern electrical system used to this day and it works delivering power to the meter on your house. Broadcast power does not have a meter end of story.
Posted by Altotus
29th Apr 2011
+3
Votes
The Vast Majority Of People
know too little about radiation, nuclear physics, and engineering to speak intelligibly about nuclear power. As a result, they are easily swayed by propaganda, distortions, appeals to emotions rather than reason, and outright lies.
Take Chernobyl as the first example. Chernobyl was a very real disaster. The prevailing view is that Chernobyl happened because nuclear power technology "is an accident waiting to happen." The reality is very different.
The chernobyl disaster resulted from a Soviet culture that abrogated safety in the name of the communist revolution. Because of that unsafe culture, four factors came together to cause the Chernobyl disaster:
- The Soviet RBMK reactor design allowed positive reactivity from steam voids during reactor operation;
- The operators were inadequately trained;
- The operational safeguards - including emergency cooling - were disabled for the test;
- The reactor test plan was not properly coordinated between the safety and reactor personnel.
The accident began with the operators violating their test procedure by exceeding their minimum operational reactivity margin with too many control rods extracted too far. Because of the design flaw, steam voids formed inside the reactor during an excessive power transient when the operators started the test run. A positive feedback loop resulted with the reactor producing more heat that created more steam, increasing pressure inside of the reactor vessel.
The operators attempted to SCRAM the reactor, but the catastrophe unfolded in mere seconds and the control rods never reached full depth before becoming jammed. Steam pressure inside of the reactor vessel exceeded design limits and cracked the reactor vessel. Rapid steam release followed and water disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen from steam and zirconium reactions. A hydrogen explosion resulted that removed the top of the containment vessel, exposing the fuel cells. Moderator, fuel, and cladding materials were ejected as the core erupted into a high-temperature metal alloy fire.
Such an accident did not happen at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in spite of the operator doing his worst to damage the reactor core. As a result of the operator's mistakes in repeatedly shutting down emergency cooling, the portion of the core that melted simply pooled in the bottom of the reactor vessel and was contained, exactly as the reactor vessel was designed to do. That was because the TMI-2 pressurized water design is very different from the unsafe Soviet early RBMK design.
Take Chernobyl as the first example. Chernobyl was a very real disaster. The prevailing view is that Chernobyl happened because nuclear power technology "is an accident waiting to happen." The reality is very different.
The chernobyl disaster resulted from a Soviet culture that abrogated safety in the name of the communist revolution. Because of that unsafe culture, four factors came together to cause the Chernobyl disaster:
- The Soviet RBMK reactor design allowed positive reactivity from steam voids during reactor operation;
- The operators were inadequately trained;
- The operational safeguards - including emergency cooling - were disabled for the test;
- The reactor test plan was not properly coordinated between the safety and reactor personnel.
The accident began with the operators violating their test procedure by exceeding their minimum operational reactivity margin with too many control rods extracted too far. Because of the design flaw, steam voids formed inside the reactor during an excessive power transient when the operators started the test run. A positive feedback loop resulted with the reactor producing more heat that created more steam, increasing pressure inside of the reactor vessel.
The operators attempted to SCRAM the reactor, but the catastrophe unfolded in mere seconds and the control rods never reached full depth before becoming jammed. Steam pressure inside of the reactor vessel exceeded design limits and cracked the reactor vessel. Rapid steam release followed and water disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen from steam and zirconium reactions. A hydrogen explosion resulted that removed the top of the containment vessel, exposing the fuel cells. Moderator, fuel, and cladding materials were ejected as the core erupted into a high-temperature metal alloy fire.
Such an accident did not happen at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in spite of the operator doing his worst to damage the reactor core. As a result of the operator's mistakes in repeatedly shutting down emergency cooling, the portion of the core that melted simply pooled in the bottom of the reactor vessel and was contained, exactly as the reactor vessel was designed to do. That was because the TMI-2 pressurized water design is very different from the unsafe Soviet early RBMK design.
Posted by cardhun@...
25th Apr 2011
+4
Votes
Most People Consider Radiation Unnatural
and irrationally fear it. The fact is that radiation is natural and is all around us all of the time. Everyone is constantly being dosed from natural and man-made exposure at the rate of about 3.6 milliSievert (360 milliRem) per year:
Radon gas: ............... 55%
Cosmic radiation: ........ 8%
Terrestial: ................... 8% (rocks, dirt, concrete)
Internal: ................... 11% (ingestion, e.g. Carbon 12)
Medical x-rays: ........ 11%
Nuclear medicine: ..... 4%
Consumer products: .. 3%
Cosmic background radiation is why people fleeing Three Mile Island by aircraft actually received more radiation than those who stayed behind.
Radon gas: ............... 55%
Cosmic radiation: ........ 8%
Terrestial: ................... 8% (rocks, dirt, concrete)
Internal: ................... 11% (ingestion, e.g. Carbon 12)
Medical x-rays: ........ 11%
Nuclear medicine: ..... 4%
Consumer products: .. 3%
Cosmic background radiation is why people fleeing Three Mile Island by aircraft actually received more radiation than those who stayed behind.
Posted by cardhun@...
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Real Killers Are Ignored
For real global killers, we need only listen to the World Health Organization:
"Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health and is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths worldwide per year. ... Significant reduction of exposure to air pollution can be achieved through lowering the concentrations of several of the most common air pollutants emitted during the combustion of fossil fuels."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html
"Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health and is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths worldwide per year. ... Significant reduction of exposure to air pollution can be achieved through lowering the concentrations of several of the most common air pollutants emitted during the combustion of fossil fuels."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html
Posted by cardhun@...
25th Apr 2011
+2
Votes
Coal - The Completely Overlooked Radiation Source
American power comes from the following sources:
Coal: .............. 44.9%
Natural Gas: ..... 23.4%
Nuclear: .......... 20.3%
Hydroelectric: ..... 6.9%
Renewable: ....... 3.6%
Petroleum: ........ 1.0%
Of all of these, coal is the biggest radiological hazard.
Nuclear fuels and waste are shielded, monitored, and regulated. The same is not true of radiactive products from coal mining and combustion. Coal actually contains Uranium 238, Uranium 235, and Thorium 232. The solid waste of fly ash produced in coal plants contains 10 times its original concentrations in coal ore.
The coal industry has constantly fought EPA efforts to regulate coal mining and coal plant operation release of radioactive isotopes into the biosphere. In fact, the coal industry is seeking to have what fly ash it does capture before the rest flies up the flue and into the air classified as "inert." The coal industry plans to deposit these millions of tons of solid waste in abandoned mines and landfills with no shielding or monitoring, completely free to escape into local water tables.
This radiation from coal pollution is not trivial. An operating nuclear reactor yields about 3 to 6 milliRem per year in background exposure. Coal plant fly ash alone exposes its surrounding population to about 18 milliRems per year - 3 to 6 times an operating nuclear plant. If food is grown near the coal plant as well, then the fly ash radioactivity enters the food chain. The resulting radioactive exposure leaps to about 27 to 54 milliRem per year, 9 to 18 times the level of an operating nuclear power plant.
Coal: .............. 44.9%
Natural Gas: ..... 23.4%
Nuclear: .......... 20.3%
Hydroelectric: ..... 6.9%
Renewable: ....... 3.6%
Petroleum: ........ 1.0%
Of all of these, coal is the biggest radiological hazard.
Nuclear fuels and waste are shielded, monitored, and regulated. The same is not true of radiactive products from coal mining and combustion. Coal actually contains Uranium 238, Uranium 235, and Thorium 232. The solid waste of fly ash produced in coal plants contains 10 times its original concentrations in coal ore.
The coal industry has constantly fought EPA efforts to regulate coal mining and coal plant operation release of radioactive isotopes into the biosphere. In fact, the coal industry is seeking to have what fly ash it does capture before the rest flies up the flue and into the air classified as "inert." The coal industry plans to deposit these millions of tons of solid waste in abandoned mines and landfills with no shielding or monitoring, completely free to escape into local water tables.
This radiation from coal pollution is not trivial. An operating nuclear reactor yields about 3 to 6 milliRem per year in background exposure. Coal plant fly ash alone exposes its surrounding population to about 18 milliRems per year - 3 to 6 times an operating nuclear plant. If food is grown near the coal plant as well, then the fly ash radioactivity enters the food chain. The resulting radioactive exposure leaps to about 27 to 54 milliRem per year, 9 to 18 times the level of an operating nuclear power plant.
Posted by cardhun@...
25th Apr 2011
+2
Votes
Options for Bridging the World to a Cleaner Future
YetAnotherBob accurately described the options and thier drawbacks for ridding ourselves of polluting fossil fuel technology for power generation.
As far as disposing of conventional fission nuclear waster waste, people should be paying attention to the traveling wave reactor (TWR). The Thorium reactor is also a very promising simple and highly scalable reactor design.
As far as disposing of conventional fission nuclear waster waste, people should be paying attention to the traveling wave reactor (TWR). The Thorium reactor is also a very promising simple and highly scalable reactor design.
Posted by cardhun@...
25th Apr 2011
+2
Votes
I repeat, if you say "nuclear" I look around for my wallet
Why aren't there more nukes in the US?
The waste issue? nope.
The nuclear proliferation issue? nope.
The design? nope.
The radiation? nope.
Politics? nope again.
M-O-N-E-Y.
Did you know that Tokyo Electric had a minority share in the
proposed nuclear power plant in Texas? They pulled out:
MONEY. Who is going to go in there and plop down a few
hundred million to take their place? And how much time is it going
to take to re-assemble that financial package and what kinds of
reassurances are the new financiers going to need that this is a
safer design?
And with all of the inherent flaws in water cooled reactor design
being showcased by Fukushima, how many other investors are
having second thoughts? Why shouldn't we wait and invest in a
safer thorium design instead, say the shareholders? And how
many billion dollars will be added to the 8 billion dollar per nuke
pricetag after Fukushima? And exactly why should ratepayers
pay premium prices for those electrons when there are cheaper
alternatives out there?
Nukes are dead because they don't make financial sense, there
are much better ways to spend the energy dollar, and it's just a
bad idea whose time never came. Amory Lovins likened heating
water to 1200 degrees with radioactivity to turn a generator blade
akin to cutting butter with a chainsaw: overkill, plain and simple.
Oh, and by the way cosserat #14, it's not painful at all to admit
that my statement was about growth percentage not total energy
production percentage. My intention was clear if you read the
context, which was that folks are shifting their energy investment
dollars to renewables, not to nuclear or coal. It is you who is
laying on a misplaced meaning to my post that was never there in
the first place. But that's OK--I forgive you.
The waste issue? nope.
The nuclear proliferation issue? nope.
The design? nope.
The radiation? nope.
Politics? nope again.
M-O-N-E-Y.
Did you know that Tokyo Electric had a minority share in the
proposed nuclear power plant in Texas? They pulled out:
MONEY. Who is going to go in there and plop down a few
hundred million to take their place? And how much time is it going
to take to re-assemble that financial package and what kinds of
reassurances are the new financiers going to need that this is a
safer design?
And with all of the inherent flaws in water cooled reactor design
being showcased by Fukushima, how many other investors are
having second thoughts? Why shouldn't we wait and invest in a
safer thorium design instead, say the shareholders? And how
many billion dollars will be added to the 8 billion dollar per nuke
pricetag after Fukushima? And exactly why should ratepayers
pay premium prices for those electrons when there are cheaper
alternatives out there?
Nukes are dead because they don't make financial sense, there
are much better ways to spend the energy dollar, and it's just a
bad idea whose time never came. Amory Lovins likened heating
water to 1200 degrees with radioactivity to turn a generator blade
akin to cutting butter with a chainsaw: overkill, plain and simple.
Oh, and by the way cosserat #14, it's not painful at all to admit
that my statement was about growth percentage not total energy
production percentage. My intention was clear if you read the
context, which was that folks are shifting their energy investment
dollars to renewables, not to nuclear or coal. It is you who is
laying on a misplaced meaning to my post that was never there in
the first place. But that's OK--I forgive you.
Posted by klassman6
25th Apr 2011
0
Votes
Why nuclear power still SUCKS!
There are two kinds of people responsible for all things bad on this planet, idiots and greedy ones -although greediness is a form of idiocy. The difference is, the greedy idiot variety controls the plane idiot variety.
You don't have to be a rocket-scientist or a nuclear expert to figure this out:
Whatever the security measures, the technology or the level of safety of a fission reactor, there is always the statistical probability that something will go very wrong, whether from internal or external causes, malfunction, man-error, sabotage or just an unpredictable physical disaster.
So it's not "if" but "when" this will happen and when it does, radiation pollution cannot be reversed. There is no "cure" for radiation.
This might happen tomorrow, in one year, or in 100 years, when exactly it doesn't matter -it will make living on earth WORSE than before, PERMANENTLY. Also the chances are constantly increasing, since more countries with dubious safety measures are building new reactors, even on unsafe (seismic etc) areas.
And while the freaky-tech fans are preparing the next Fukushima-like disaster, there is damage done on a daily basis by the waste disposal. Waste-disposal is not always done properly -because of the cost. There are even cases where boats were sank to make nuke waste "disappear" the low cost way and people that investigated such cases were "disappeared" too. In other cases, they secretly dropped the barrels (not appropriate for nuclear waste) on the sea. As more countries adopt this kind or freaky-technology for the first time, such irresponsible disposal methods will become more common. It's freaky because it targets your DNA, it makes mutants and threatens life itself.
And there is the depleted uranium weapons (made from nuclear waste material). There are dead and deformed babies born, rising numbers of cancers, a dramatic increase in birth defects and other genetic disorders in Iraq and Afganishtan where hundreds of tons have dropped. Serious health consequences are already and will be felt for years also by men and women who were sent over there to fight. Expect the same in any current and future wars.
So we're actually sitting on not one, but many time bombs. Different disaster events might occur, maybe more than one in the next few decades.
The sooner we totally replace nuclear fission with green alternatives, the better. No, nuclear fission is NOT green.
It's not the only source of pollution, it's the only source that has permanent, irreversible destructive results. The only type of pollution that threats the human existence -therefore, the worst one. It simply doesn't worth the risk.
Even dummies should be able to understand that -except the greedy idiots concerned only about their own miserable, tiny lifespan. But even them, would be disappointed if they lived in Fukushima (even if not, if it wasn't beyond their capacity).
You don't have to be a rocket-scientist or a nuclear expert to figure this out:
Whatever the security measures, the technology or the level of safety of a fission reactor, there is always the statistical probability that something will go very wrong, whether from internal or external causes, malfunction, man-error, sabotage or just an unpredictable physical disaster.
So it's not "if" but "when" this will happen and when it does, radiation pollution cannot be reversed. There is no "cure" for radiation.
This might happen tomorrow, in one year, or in 100 years, when exactly it doesn't matter -it will make living on earth WORSE than before, PERMANENTLY. Also the chances are constantly increasing, since more countries with dubious safety measures are building new reactors, even on unsafe (seismic etc) areas.
And while the freaky-tech fans are preparing the next Fukushima-like disaster, there is damage done on a daily basis by the waste disposal. Waste-disposal is not always done properly -because of the cost. There are even cases where boats were sank to make nuke waste "disappear" the low cost way and people that investigated such cases were "disappeared" too. In other cases, they secretly dropped the barrels (not appropriate for nuclear waste) on the sea. As more countries adopt this kind or freaky-technology for the first time, such irresponsible disposal methods will become more common. It's freaky because it targets your DNA, it makes mutants and threatens life itself.
And there is the depleted uranium weapons (made from nuclear waste material). There are dead and deformed babies born, rising numbers of cancers, a dramatic increase in birth defects and other genetic disorders in Iraq and Afganishtan where hundreds of tons have dropped. Serious health consequences are already and will be felt for years also by men and women who were sent over there to fight. Expect the same in any current and future wars.
So we're actually sitting on not one, but many time bombs. Different disaster events might occur, maybe more than one in the next few decades.
The sooner we totally replace nuclear fission with green alternatives, the better. No, nuclear fission is NOT green.
It's not the only source of pollution, it's the only source that has permanent, irreversible destructive results. The only type of pollution that threats the human existence -therefore, the worst one. It simply doesn't worth the risk.
Even dummies should be able to understand that -except the greedy idiots concerned only about their own miserable, tiny lifespan. But even them, would be disappointed if they lived in Fukushima (even if not, if it wasn't beyond their capacity).
Posted by Administrator.
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
You do not have the full story on fossel fuels
The truth about oil and coal; you will not be informed but the information is in pieces parts and there is no study to put it together. Not surprising either as trillions are at stake. Wars will be fought many have already died and more will. Put the thing in perspective, no choice is made without comparison!
Posted by Altotus
29th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
to cardhung@...
Congratulations for your unusually accurate and well balanced contributions. In 18 you identify carbon 12 as a naturally occuring radioactive element. A typo I am sure - the "culprit" is carbon 14. You might also include pottasium 41 as well as uranium and thorium and their many radioactive decay products - all quite natural and with us at all times and to some extent, at all locations. It is also worthy of note that those of our species who have lived for generations at high mountain locations, while subject to substantially higher exposure to cosmic radiation than those at sea level, are not particularly short lived or ravaged by cancer. And cosmic radiation has been arriving from outer space for millions of years.
Re 21, I am skeptical, but not informed, so I make no comment other than about thorium "reactors". A fissionable isotope of uranium can be made by neutron irradiation of thorium but as far as I am aware, nuclear fission whether of uranium isotopes or plutonium, generates the radioactive "products of fission", which are hazardous and are storage and disposal problems of considerable consequence.
Congratulations for your unusually accurate and well balanced contributions. In 18 you identify carbon 12 as a naturally occuring radioactive element. A typo I am sure - the "culprit" is carbon 14. You might also include pottasium 41 as well as uranium and thorium and their many radioactive decay products - all quite natural and with us at all times and to some extent, at all locations. It is also worthy of note that those of our species who have lived for generations at high mountain locations, while subject to substantially higher exposure to cosmic radiation than those at sea level, are not particularly short lived or ravaged by cancer. And cosmic radiation has been arriving from outer space for millions of years.
Re 21, I am skeptical, but not informed, so I make no comment other than about thorium "reactors". A fissionable isotope of uranium can be made by neutron irradiation of thorium but as far as I am aware, nuclear fission whether of uranium isotopes or plutonium, generates the radioactive "products of fission", which are hazardous and are storage and disposal problems of considerable consequence.
Posted by canuck31
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Current reactor designs
Your getting into fuel cycles its a good think that used fuel kills its designed that way. Intended not accidental. Supposed to be fatal to handle. Poisoned with intent.
Posted by Altotus
29th Apr 2011
+2
Votes
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
If nuclear reactors are such a bad choice why do many of the developed nations depend upon them and are actively building more. China has something like thirty under construction and many more on the way. France produces 80 percent of it electricity using reactors. I guess they are all just dumb. The link below from Wikipedia gives statistics on what the rest of the world is doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Most of the other developed countries also recycle the fuel rods. It reduces the waste storage by 95% and they recover useful products. We buy most of our medical radioactive materials from Canada who recycles spent fuel. They make good money on this and employ Canadians with jobs that could have been US jobs.
The radiation danger of stored rods is also very over blown. People apparently just like to be scared of radiation and other super natural things. Perhaps if more of them would spend a few hours reading Wikipedia instead of listening to the insanity on TV, we might be able to make some informed decisions on the future energy policy of the US
Most of the other developed countries also recycle the fuel rods. It reduces the waste storage by 95% and they recover useful products. We buy most of our medical radioactive materials from Canada who recycles spent fuel. They make good money on this and employ Canadians with jobs that could have been US jobs.
The radiation danger of stored rods is also very over blown. People apparently just like to be scared of radiation and other super natural things. Perhaps if more of them would spend a few hours reading Wikipedia instead of listening to the insanity on TV, we might be able to make some informed decisions on the future energy policy of the US
Posted by lindted@...
25th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
The oil company's hope your scarred good but and how.
Gotta make that gas go higher its just begun to raise. Got a long long way to go up up and away.
Posted by Altotus
29th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Message has been deleted.
Posted by teed03
Updated - 26th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
Whilst I sympathise with the view that waste is a signifcant problem, people dying as a result of nuclear accidents must be of greater concern.
If Thorium reactors are so much safer, how come none of them are proposed for new nuclear build in the UK and around the world? For that matter how come energy comapnies aren't proposing building a larger number of smaller safer PWR reactors? Economics are ruling over common sense.
If we build nukes we are trying to control a reaction which, if left alone, has catastrophic and unpredicatable consequences. It is this unpredicatbility which makes it virtually impossible to design cost effective safety systems. Almost unique in human endeavour, the feedback after a nuclear accident is all negative. At least with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico we knew what the worst case was. Don't say it can't happen.
Responsible sources, which use data based upon previous health patterns and reported illnesses, not on safe dose rates (which are under question) say that 200,000 people have died in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus as a result of Chernobyl. If you want a copy of a press release "What Chernobyl stands for, please contact me via the Communities Against Nuclear Expansion Facebook site.
If Thorium reactors are so much safer, how come none of them are proposed for new nuclear build in the UK and around the world? For that matter how come energy comapnies aren't proposing building a larger number of smaller safer PWR reactors? Economics are ruling over common sense.
If we build nukes we are trying to control a reaction which, if left alone, has catastrophic and unpredicatable consequences. It is this unpredicatbility which makes it virtually impossible to design cost effective safety systems. Almost unique in human endeavour, the feedback after a nuclear accident is all negative. At least with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico we knew what the worst case was. Don't say it can't happen.
Responsible sources, which use data based upon previous health patterns and reported illnesses, not on safe dose rates (which are under question) say that 200,000 people have died in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus as a result of Chernobyl. If you want a copy of a press release "What Chernobyl stands for, please contact me via the Communities Against Nuclear Expansion Facebook site.
Posted by prowberr
26th Apr 2011
+1
Vote
Not the full picture
200,000 is nothing compared to eliminating enough of the human race as to have a "sustainable" energy population. You do not know the dark side of fossil fuel. Let alone wars fought for access to resources.
Posted by Altotus
29th Apr 2011
0
Votes
Distorting the truth
William Tucker writes:
"Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight?six ounces!?will be completely transformed into energy. But the energy produced by that transformation will be enough to power a city the size of San Francisco for five years"
What a load of nonsense! Six ounces is lost out of out of how much fuel in the fuel rod? As nuclear fission occurs, fission products quickly build up which prevent a sustainable nuclear reaction and the fuel has to be removed. The spent fuel which is produced is highly radioactive and continues to generate a huge amount of heat which is wasted and has to be disipated, along with 66% of the heat generated by the fuel when in use, which heats the sea or goes up in steam up a cololing tower. Only a small percentage of fuel is ever used to produce useful energy.
After removing spent fuel from a PWR reactor it has to be actively cooled for at least twenty five years in spent fuel ponds before it can be moved safely into fuel casks. Now it is true that a small amount of nuclear fuel does produce a large amount of energy, but perfect it is not. In the meantime, radiation from spent fuel is a risk to health for more than 10,000 years.
"Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight?six ounces!?will be completely transformed into energy. But the energy produced by that transformation will be enough to power a city the size of San Francisco for five years"
What a load of nonsense! Six ounces is lost out of out of how much fuel in the fuel rod? As nuclear fission occurs, fission products quickly build up which prevent a sustainable nuclear reaction and the fuel has to be removed. The spent fuel which is produced is highly radioactive and continues to generate a huge amount of heat which is wasted and has to be disipated, along with 66% of the heat generated by the fuel when in use, which heats the sea or goes up in steam up a cololing tower. Only a small percentage of fuel is ever used to produce useful energy.
After removing spent fuel from a PWR reactor it has to be actively cooled for at least twenty five years in spent fuel ponds before it can be moved safely into fuel casks. Now it is true that a small amount of nuclear fuel does produce a large amount of energy, but perfect it is not. In the meantime, radiation from spent fuel is a risk to health for more than 10,000 years.
Posted by prowberr
26th Apr 2011
+4
Votes
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
"Will nuclear ever be relevant?"
"We need newer technology if nuclear is to be relevent."
You guys are too funny. Nuclear power is very relevant. There are 442 nuclear plants in operation world-wide, producing 374,958 Megawatts of electricity. France gets 75% of their electricy from nucleare energy. The Ukaraine still gets 50% of their electricity from nuclear plants, post Chernobyl. Tell the French that nuclear power is not relevant.
China has 13 plants and is building 27 more. They have to power their country, now that they are becoming a modern civilization. The United States has 104 nukes producing 100,747 Megawatts. Not relevant? Dudes, wake up and smell the coffee.
"Have we already forgotten Chernobyl?"
"Too many people today were born too late to remember Chernobyl or Three Mile Island."
1> We have not forgotten Chernobyl. Neither have the Ukrainians, who get 50% of their electricity from nukes. Chernobyl was a product of a corrupt Socialist State, and was designed poorly, and safety procedures were not followed.
Three Mile Island? There was no disaster. Coolant water leaked. No one was killed, and several epidemiological studies in the years since the accident have supported the conclusion that the tiny amount of radiation released from the accident had no perceptible effect on cancer incidence in residents near the plant.
William Tucker is absolutely correct when he states that "a coal plant must be fed by a 100-car freight train arriving every 30 hours."
Nulcear plants power France, Lithuania, Belgium, Ukraine, Chian, and the United States (among others) and the US Navy. It's the most effective way to produce clean power. It is highly relevant, and most effective.
The imperative is proper design, and strict adherance to proper safety procedures.
"We need newer technology if nuclear is to be relevent."
You guys are too funny. Nuclear power is very relevant. There are 442 nuclear plants in operation world-wide, producing 374,958 Megawatts of electricity. France gets 75% of their electricy from nucleare energy. The Ukaraine still gets 50% of their electricity from nuclear plants, post Chernobyl. Tell the French that nuclear power is not relevant.
China has 13 plants and is building 27 more. They have to power their country, now that they are becoming a modern civilization. The United States has 104 nukes producing 100,747 Megawatts. Not relevant? Dudes, wake up and smell the coffee.
"Have we already forgotten Chernobyl?"
"Too many people today were born too late to remember Chernobyl or Three Mile Island."
1> We have not forgotten Chernobyl. Neither have the Ukrainians, who get 50% of their electricity from nukes. Chernobyl was a product of a corrupt Socialist State, and was designed poorly, and safety procedures were not followed.
Three Mile Island? There was no disaster. Coolant water leaked. No one was killed, and several epidemiological studies in the years since the accident have supported the conclusion that the tiny amount of radiation released from the accident had no perceptible effect on cancer incidence in residents near the plant.
William Tucker is absolutely correct when he states that "a coal plant must be fed by a 100-car freight train arriving every 30 hours."
Nulcear plants power France, Lithuania, Belgium, Ukraine, Chian, and the United States (among others) and the US Navy. It's the most effective way to produce clean power. It is highly relevant, and most effective.
The imperative is proper design, and strict adherance to proper safety procedures.
Posted by bb_apptix
26th Apr 2011
+2
Votes
RE: Why nuclear power still matters
The deaths from Chernobyl are probably no where near 200,000. Check Wikipedia. Anti nuclear organizations report 100's of thousands. Russia and World Health report around 4000. Chernobyl was a result of massive stupidity on several fronts. It was a graphite reactor (an type used by very early researchers) that the managers decided to play with. Another supernatural tale.
Posted by lindted@...
26th Apr 2011
-1
Votes
it matters because the oil companies can't control it and will do anything
to stop it.
we can solve any problem if we just put our collective imagination to work and get it done.
it's the leadership of the possible we need.
as long as the ones' that profit from the success or failure are the one's making the rules, it will continue to be a problem.
we need good leadership, not an Energy Czar that just wants to force his small opinion on the rest of us.
what can we accomplish in this decade?
our present leader wants to degrade our great nation to benefit the impoverished.
we will not see benefits from nuclear until the entire globe is in dire need.
so very sad.
.
we can solve any problem if we just put our collective imagination to work and get it done.
it's the leadership of the possible we need.
as long as the ones' that profit from the success or failure are the one's making the rules, it will continue to be a problem.
we need good leadership, not an Energy Czar that just wants to force his small opinion on the rest of us.
what can we accomplish in this decade?
our present leader wants to degrade our great nation to benefit the impoverished.
we will not see benefits from nuclear until the entire globe is in dire need.
so very sad.
.
Posted by wessonjoe
26th Apr 2011