Let's hear it for nuclear power

[atuhalpa]

Ok, first off I have led by example. I haven't fathered any children and had a vasectomy at age 38. Second I know I use less energy than the average US citizen cause I don't watch TV and I drive a car that gets 45 miles to the gallon. I turn the water heater down to zilch at night, I recycle everything I can, in fact I am a caregiver and I recycle for my clients, and I compost all my vegetable matter, and I grow a garden to augment my food. I don't eat meat grown in a feedlot and I don't eat fast food. I do everything that is humanly possible to reduce my energy usage, DO YOU?

Nuclear power still sucks and just cause Hogan likes it doesn't change a thing. He's been duped just like the rest of them.

 

[computerex]

Nuclear power still sucks and just cause Hogan likes it doesn't change a thing.

Yep. Nuclear power is a hack, not a solution. May work temporarily, but not for long term. Some people say that in the future we will find ways to get rid of the radioactive waste, but as far as I know, I don't even think any significant research is being done on the matter...

 

[ThatGuy]

Comic relief:
We have rockets. Send the waste into the sun!

My stance:
Pro-nuclear. From what I've read, it seems like a good decision (Though, I'm not well educated on the subject)

 

[Ghostrider]

Terrorists want to create terror. A chemical weapon will create terror for a short time, but after a couple hours you know the extent of the damage.

Oh, rats. The Tango Argument, those eeevil terr-ow-rists want to kill us all. I'd say it's pointless to fight them since they're already won: we're totally so scared to death by them.

There are plenty of arguments for limiting the use of nuclear power, but the Tango Argument doesn't hold much water: you can get the material - as you pointed out - from a hospital so should we give up the use of radioactive materiel in medicine because the eeevil terr-ow-rists might get them dirty hands on them? Why haven't they done so already? Why don't we go back to Stone Age technology because the eeevil terr-ow-rists then won't have any advanced tech to kill us all with? Where in the name of IKEA does it stop?

 

[Chipstone306]

my opinion

Ive been lurking here reading the thread and I am greatly interested. I say use it to a limited sense with renewable energy resources...aka wind solar, water being used as well. Time to make coal and oil extinct. No more relying on other countries for our fuel resources...

 

[Biscuit]

The big problem is that 'nuclear' is the big bad boogeyman to most people ... it's cleaner, safer, and cheaper than coal .... but, it's 'nuclear' therefore it's bad.

If the environmentalists hadn't bullied the politicians into stalling on the Yucca Mountain repository, we would have a great place to put the waste until something better could be devised (better storage, better reactor designs to utilize the waste, whatever) ...

But, anything that is even remotely corporate related is evil according to the environmentalists ... look at the furor wrought by them over drilling for oil in ANWR ... the proposed drill site is just as desolate as Yucca Mountain ... nothing like the pristine pictures of flowers and caribou that the greenies kept pushing ... but then, never let a fact get in the way of shutting down progress or blackmailing a corporation.

I believe that fusion is possible ... someday ... problem is it's been due to be feasible 'next week' for about as long as I can remember. We need cleaner, better energy now ... even assuming that fusion will be commercially feasible 20 years from now, that is still 20 years of more and more coal and oil being burned trying to keep up with demand.

Meanwhile, nuclear can be put into place that can take care of the demand until something better comes along.

Basically, until people finally get fed up with anti-corporate, anti-progress, anarchists/environmentalists/luddites trying to weasel their way into every single facet of our personal lives ... look at the facts and stand up and call "Bullsh*t" ... things are only going to get worse.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I fully support "green power", TVA is building (in partnership) more wind turbines on Buffalo Mtn, plus we have a very extensive hydroelectric system. There are also multiple projects with private companies that involve photovoltaic cells on their property.
That being said, I DO work at a nuclear power plant, so, GO NUKE!!!

 

[Urwumpe]

The big problem is that 'nuclear' is the big bad boogeyman to most people ... it's cleaner, safer, and cheaper than coal .... but, it's 'nuclear' therefore it's bad.

if you include mining, processing and storage of nuclear waste, nuclear power is extremely dirty. Every wondered where the Uranium comes from? It is sure not laying around in large nuggets on the bottom of the ocean.

Safer: Nuclear power is safe, if you have VERY strict operation rules. You need strict rules for the operation, you need large amounts of training for the workers. This works great for the US Navy, which has the military hierarchy to implement such rules and the budget to pay properly for the needed construction details and maintenance.

It is less safe, if you have the rules, but have to violate the rules every other day because your higher power does not give you the money to build proper reactors and maintain it, instead operating a reactor on duct tape and hope (The Russian Navy version)

It is extremely unsafe, if you your rules are not worth the paper they are printed on, shareholder value can change best practices and the reactor parts are from the lowest bidder, ignoring the standards needed for such parts. This is the case for most civilian nuclear reactors and the number of small and large accidents shows it well. No such accident would EVER have happened, if operators followed the rules.

And that is the problem: On all other power sources, your chain of errors has maybe a dozen decision steps, before things go catastrophic, on nuclear reactors, you have only the freedom to do maybe two things wrong before you can't control the situation.

If your procedures and training are then also flawed, it is very simple to get the needed two things wrong.

Nuclear power is also not cheaper: Even without the military style training and operations, nuclear power relies on government money for being competitive. There is no civilian nuclear power provider in the world, which can pay even cheap operations without the tax payer filling gaps. For example by giving the large terrain for nuclear power stations for free (only chemical plants require more terrain and spacing to residents), or later paying for the disposal of the nuclear waste and the decontamination of the (still government owned) terrain. Police escorts for the nuclear waste are also paid by the government, not by the nuclear industry.

If all costs for the nuclear power would be put on the energy price, nuclear power would cost 4-20 times more than coal.

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

That being said, I DO work at a nuclear power plant, so, GO NUKE!!!

Nuclear Industry in Germany: 20,000 jobs
Renewble Energy Industry in Germany: 214,000 jobs, 70,000 alone in the wind energy sector. In the whole environment technology sector, we have 800,000 jobs.

And did I mention that environment technology companies have the cuter hosts at industry fairs? GO GREEN!!!

 

[pattersoncr]

if you include mining, processing and storage of nuclear waste, nuclear power is extremely dirty. Every wondered where the Uranium comes from? It is sure not laying around in large nuggets on the bottom of the ocean.

You are looking at nuclear in isolation. Compare it to it's alternatives. How much uranium must be mined vs the abount of coal that must be mined to produce the same power?

Safer: Nuclear power is safe, if you have VERY strict operation rules. You need strict rules for the operation, you need large amounts of training for the workers. This works great for the US Navy, which has the military hierarchy to implement such rules and the budget to pay properly for the needed construction details and maintenance.

It is less safe, if you have the rules, but have to violate the rules every other day because your higher power does not give you the money to build proper reactors and maintain it, instead operating a reactor on duct tape and hope (The Russian Navy version)

It is extremely unsafe, if you your rules are not worth the paper they are printed on, shareholder value can change best practices and the reactor parts are from the lowest bidder, ignoring the standards needed for such parts. This is the case for most civilian nuclear reactors and the number of small and large accidents shows it well. No such accident would EVER have happened, if operators followed the rules.

And that is the problem: On all other power sources, your chain of errors has maybe a dozen decision steps, before things go catastrophic, on nuclear reactors, you have only the freedom to do maybe two things wrong before you can't control the situation.

If your procedures and training are then also flawed, it is very simple to get the needed two things wrong.

We've run these experiments. At TMI, they melted the core. It is the worst credible accident for a light waterr moderated reactor. What was the effect? A billion doller investment turned into trash. Deaths? zero. Injuries? zero.
Chernobyl? A reactor designed by people who didn't care about safety. Built by people who didn't care about safety. Operated by people who didn't care about safety. Administered by a government that didn't care about safety. Of of course something bad was bound to happen. The result? 60 short term deaths, less than 4000 cases of thyroid cancer. While those were regrettable, this was far from the worst industrial accident in history. Ever here of Bhopal?

Nuclear power is also not cheaper: Even without the military style training and operations, nuclear power relies on government money for being competitive. There is no civilian nuclear power provider in the world, which can pay even cheap operations without the tax payer filling gaps. For example by giving the large terrain for nuclear power stations for free (only chemical plants require more terrain and spacing to residents), or later paying for the disposal of the nuclear waste and the decontamination of the (still government owned) terrain. Police escorts for the nuclear waste are also paid by the government, not by the nuclear industry.

If all costs for the nuclear power would be put on the energy price, nuclear power would cost 4-20 times more than coal.

Coal is currently cheaper because nuclear doea pay for it's external costs. Used fuel disposal and decomissioning is covered by a fee paid for every kWhr of electricity produced. Coal plants dump their waste for free.

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------



Nuclear Industry in Germany: 20,000 jobs
Renewble Energy Industry in Germany: 214,000 jobs, 70,000 alone in the wind energy sector. In the whole environment technology sector, we have 800,000 jobs.

And those "green" energy sources whose stated goal was reducing fossil fuel emmisions, how many fossil fuel plants have they allowed Germany to shut down?

And did I mention that environment technology companies have the cuter hosts at industry fairs? GO GREEN!!!

I completely agree. You've hit the nail on the head. Nuclear has a huge PM problem.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Coal plant DO dump their waste, but not exactly free. TVA's Kingston plant had one of their retaining walls collapse around an ash pond. I'll be losing performance bonus on that accident for a while.
OK, I work at a nuke plant, and I'll be the first to admit that the head count per megawatt is huge. It takes a lot of people to run this plant according to the rules of NRC. Our proceedures are designed (it seems like anyway) to slow the work down, not to prevent people like me from fixing things in a timely manner, but to ensure that we do maintenance in accordance to the guidelines.
Yeah, the girls at green power expos are pretty hot...

 

[Brycesv1]

/me comes into this knowing almost nothing

im pro nuke and i hate the sad arguments that anti nuke ppl come up with (unless of course you can show me proof that im wrong)

ok so you have to mine, you have to dispose of waste, you have to take up a large amount of terrain, and you have to be safe about it.

for the first 2. it can be more expensive to do such things when compared to coal or oil. but then when you actually look at how much material you need compared to coal or oil you see that it becomes much much cheaper.

when you compare it to wind farms and dams you take up FAR less space to produce much more power.

when proper safety measures are taken the system is more or less completely safe and puts out far less polution than coal or oil plants. it may have a bigger facility but it isnt directly contaminating the surroundings for miles around with polutants.

if im not mistaken, when efficient fusion reactors CAN be produced it shouldnt be very hard to convert pre-existing nuclear reactors to save time and money.

theres my 2 cents. i recycle, i dont waste water, and i try to conserve power. however i will not buy a reusable bag from fred meyer that took 5000 times the resources to make than a plastic bag and will wear out before it has been used that many times. its a waste.

 

[Urwumpe]

for the first 2. it can be more expensive to do such things when compared to coal or oil. but then when you actually look at how much material you need compared to coal or oil you see that it becomes much much cheaper.

I am still calculating the masses, it is a bit hard to get some important information about the economics of nuclear reactors, maybe somebody can help me.

I need the best known values for existing nuclear reactors for the initial concentration of U-235, the amount of U-235 when the fuel element is burned out and the amount of Plutonium breed and burned until the fuel element is burned out.

Currently, I get 12000 tons of lignite coal (the worst kind of coal) for a coal power plant that produces the same amount of energy as a nuclear fuel element with 1 kg Uranium-235. The nuclear power plant needed to mine just 140 kg of Uranite for producing the fuel element with one kg U-235. To this comes the chemicals needed for producing Yellow Cake and concentrating the isotope.

The amount of coal seems to be a little bit small.

 

[pattersoncr]

Urwumpe,
Take a look here.

Fuel burnup is measured in MW days per tonne U, and many utilities are increasing the initial enrichment of their fuel (eg from 3.3 to more than 4.0% U-235) and then burning it longer or harder to leave only 0.5% U-235 in it.

I believe "Tonnes of U" refers to total U metal (i.e. 235 & 238)in the fuel but I very well may be wrong. I believe the MW here is thermal rather than electric.
Current numbers for nuclear plants are >40,000 MWd/ton.

According to wiki, Anthracite has a heat content of 27MJ/kg.

Producing 40,000MWd worth of heat would require 3,456,000 metric tons of coal (more for softer coals).

(40,000MWday * 1MJ/1MWs * 86400s/day * 1kg/27MJ * 1ton/1000kg)

 

[Tommy]

And Again, again, name one member of the public injured by spent nuclear fuel.

Funny thing about that. In order for it to be considered an "injury", it must be identified and medically linked to radiation within one year of exposure. Any disease caused by radiation after one year doesn't count, nor does reproductive damage including birth defects in the offspring of the contaminated person count no matter how soon it happens. While the government and power industries continue to claim "no injuries", hundreds of people have successfully sued for actual proven damage to their health. They are counted as "disease", not "injury". BTW, here in the US, the Nuclear Incident Exclusion Act means your health insurance doesn't have to cover any medical costs - you have to sue the "owner" of the particular waste you can prove you were exposed to. I hope you can afford a good lawyer, cause you know they can.

At TMI, they melted the core. It is the worst credible accident for a light waterr moderated reactor. What was the effect? A billion doller investment turned into trash. Deaths? zero. Injuries? zero.

This is a myth. The original study done by the DOE that claimed "no injuries" has been widely discredited because of the methods used. The results of this study were "diluted" by the inclusion of thousands of people who didn't live within the studies range. Many were reported as being closer than they were (for example, 122,000 people who lived more than 10 miles away were reported as being 5 to 10 miles away). It also was based on a radius, and didn't differentiate between "upwind" or "downwind", nor were results correlated to dosage levels. Newer studies have shown very different results. Cancer and other radiation related disease rates were more than 400 times higher than average for people who lived directly downwind. Children concieved in that area for the next two weeks after the release were 700 times more likely to be born with lukemia. Tell one of those kids that nuclear power is safe, and they're just over-estimating the risks. Oh, wait - you can't. They are all dead. Newborn babies don't usually survive treatment for lukemia. I guess you can tell their parents. Here's one of the studies - note that the increased risks shown in the abstract are percent increase PER DOSE UNIT, and many people received a couple hundred "dose units".

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1469835

Any study or survey can be made to produce the results you are looking for. I've seen one "study" by the nuke industry that claims over 300,000 deaths due to Hydro-Electric plants in the last 25 years. They simply included everyone who drowned while swimming or boating on any reservoir (even those created by non-electric dams), and voila! Here's the answer they wanted to tell you!

 

[pattersoncr]

Tommy,
The Wing "study" has been widely discredited.
Here is one of the many studies that showed no significant health effects:
Mortality among the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1992
and its followup:
Long-Term Follow-Up of the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1998

In conclusion, the mortality surveillance of this cohort, with a total of almost 20 years of follow-up, provides no consistent evidence that radioactivity released during the TMI accident (estimated maximum and likely gamma exposure) has had a significant impact on the mortality experience of this cohort through 1998.

The study followed 32,000 residnets of the area for twenty years. There are litterly dozens of studies that come to the same conclusion. Wing is the only one who seems to have "found" anything.

 

[martins]

Of course we shouldn't stop using electricity. I've read the life expectancy of those without access to electricity is ~40.

This correlation would surely delight the adepts of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who were also the first to point out the well-known link between global warming and the decline of piratry (btw. a theory based on observations which pre-date the recent Somali fashion trend).

 

[Brycesv1]

This correlation would surely delight the adepts of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who were also the first to point out the well-known link between global warming and the decline of piratry (btw. a theory based on observations which pre-date the recent Somali fashion trend).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fBR-pKxjf0"]YouTube - EVE Online: Pirate Sing Along[/ame]

 

[atuhalpa]

Spent Uranium doesn't stay in safe repositories, it's made into weapons!

One of these posts claimed next to zero injuries or radiation poisoning for spent nuclear fuel. Huh? Another real problem with nuclear is that the countries that produce spent nuclear fuel use it in depleted uranium munitions and I don't think I need to go into that abomination. You see that is the whole problem with humans, (mainly the ones with the Y chromosome), they have to turn EVERYTHING into a weapon cause they are naked predatory apes. Tsk tsk! The sooner that big meteorite strike that knocks us back into the stone age the better!

I appologize to all for using an inappropriate adjective. And I guess I am wrong about spent nuclear fuel so I'll be quiet now.
Goodnight.

 

[Andy44]

Another real problem with nuclear is that the countries that produce spent nuclear fuel use it in depleted uranium munitions and I don't think I need to go into that abomination.

I might be wrong, but DU used in projectiles is produced by seperating U-235 from U-238 when making nuclear fuel, not from fuel that has already been used?

And what does the use of uranium for other purposes have to do with nuclear power per se?

 

[Sky Captain]

Hmm, I think if you tried to make a weapon projectiles out of spent nuclear fuel the operator of weapon would die before he had chance to shoot someone.