Terror of nuclear power - the weakest Skeptoid episode yet?

[bigkev]

Normally I love the show and can’t wait for each episode.

However the recent episode on nuclear power, while it had some good thought provoking points in it, didn’t meet the usual standard.

Stating that that generation 2 reactors are safer than generation 1 reactors and generation 3 are safer than generation 2, sounds funny for four reasons.

1. It isn’t an argument, its an assertion. It sounded like a reading straight from the nuclear industry brochure.
2. It smells of contradiction. If Generation 3 reactors are so wonderfully safe, why are they dreaming up generation 4 and 5? Yeah there might be reasons to do with fuel efficiency and minimizing waste etc but without dealing with those reasons explicitly it sounds funny.
3. It flies in the face of our own experience. Just because there is a new generation of a product, it doesn’t mean that the problems are solved. I don’t know how many generations of Microsoft operating systems there have been but I’m sure that Vista still crashes. (Not a perfect analogy I know).
4. It’s incomplete in terms of a safety story, design is only part of the safety picture. Brian touched on this briefly by saying that operator error is taken out of the equation in later generation design but don’t say exactly how. The only other clue mentioned in the cast is that non flammable graphite is used in new generations.

You can imagine if the same argument had been used to promote Mona Vie. “Oh sure Generation 1 Mona Vie might not have had medicinal properties, but now we are onto Generation 2!”

It would have been much more satisfying if we had been let into the physics a little and how the design assumptions are changing. The basics of a nuclear reactor aren’t that complicated (lots of uranium in a small space plus something to stop it from exploding) so I’m sure it could have been done.

Brian could also have addressed the other issues that people might raise with more nuclear power stations, like potential uranium pilfering, possible increases in weapon grade plutonium, proliferation of catastrophic terrorist targets etc. I’m sure all of these have answers.

The strongest bits of the podcast were in the comparison with other power generations. Nuclear power isn’t safe, but then neither are dams, and coal mining certainly isn’t! So the death by particulate emissions data was great and very relevant. The insight that it’s not about finding a perfect place to store waste, its finding places better than we currently have is relevant too.


That opening statement by the way – about more nuclear power years ago would have hastened the introduction of electric cars. Was that just being provocative? Isn’t the take up of electric cars more to do with the relative cost of petrol and advances in battery technology than the cost of electricity? Even if electricity was very cheap that doesn’t help if batteries are heavy and expensive, which they have been until relatively recently.

What do people think?

[Gate2501]

Reactor design can be rather complex, and there are many different subtypes within the reactor generations. They were probably more interested in presenting the facts in a timely manner than creating a uber thorough 6 hour long movie that no one would watch.

Edit:
The Mona Vie bit was just ridiculous. Can you honestly think that is a decent analogy?

-Mona Vie doesn't work at all, you would expect a *generation2* Mona Vie to also not work unless it was a completely different product.
-*GenerationA* reactors work. *GenerationA+1* reactors are just an upgrade in terms of safety, improved fuel technology, and standardized design.

So how is that analogous to creating a second *generation* Mona Vie?

[bigkev]

Let me put it another way.

"So-called Generation I MonaVie was an early prototype neutraceutical. Generation I MonaVie was characterized by a fundamentally unsafe recipe, and kludged layers of afterthought vitamins. Now most distributors deploying MonaVie are using the Generation II recipe. Generation II MonaVie is significantly improved, but these changes were primarily evolutionary. Most of the commercial resellers in operation in the United States are distributing Generation II formula. A little over ten years ago, Generation III formula began appearing in some of the world's most advanced neutraceutical laboratories. Generation III formula incorporates not only evolutionary improvements, but also revolutionary changes such as mineral enhancement that result in much improved energy output and reduced capacity for the creation of side effects. The newest formula being designed for consumer use is called Generation III+, which incorporate all the newest knowledge from the Generation III formula. If a new recipe was approved and manufactured in the United States today, it would be a Generation III+ recipe. Even if every plant employee keeled over with a heart attack, it would not be due to the content of MonaVie; the recipe has been fundamentally redesigned so that the digestion cannot be sustained if things go outside the parameters."

Of course this is the podcast rewritten with 'reactor' changed for Monavie and 'design' substituted for formula. (more or less).

The only reason I can do that, and it still makes some sense, is because the paragraph consists of a series of broad assertions. It doesn't prove to me that new nuclear generators are safer, it just says that they are. You should try new generation Monavie - its fantastic, and so healthy!

If Brian had said that new reactor designs use passive convective cooling so that they don't rely on the potentially fallible cooling pumps (hypothetical example), then that's a specific discrete and relevant fact. I can go away and verify it - and if it is true then it strengthens the argument. This is normally what Brian does.

I don't buy your point about the new designs being too complex to explain. New generation Monavie has some pretty advanced biochemistry too but I won't bother you about that.

I just think that this podcast is not about being anti-conspiracy theory and anti conspiracy theorists its about putting a logical structured, persuasive argument forward. That requires setting out verifiable facts and drawing valid conclusions from them. Otherwise we just sound as dogmatic as them and the debate doesn't move forward.

[vita10gy]

I don't think Brian has to set out to prove every statement of fact he makes. They ARE safer, that isn't a controversial opinion on the matter, it's a fact.

As to your other claims, this wasn't meant to be a 4 year degree in how nuclear power works. Furthermore I think it was fine that he limited his scope to the "AHHH!!! Nuclear Power is going to kill us all!!!!!1111!!!" aspect of the issue, and not the other issues (proliferation and whatnot) because that is a huge pop misconception, which is what Skeptoid is all about.

He has to limit his scope somewhere.

Your assertion that, because they are working on improving them with Gen 4 and 5, that Gen 3's can't be better than 1 and 2's or must not be good enough to use doesn't follow any line of reason whatsoever.

No one ever said better has to mean perfect. Windows XP might still crash occasionally, but it doesn't bluescreen nearly as much as Windows 98. In fact, dare I say, it RARELY does. It might not have foolproof security when you connect to the internet, but at least you don't have to spend 3 hours configuring crap like the Windows 3.11 days and wondering what the hell Winsock.dll is to get to the internet in the first place.

I imagine his point about electric cars had to do with the fact that you would have had the perfect storm, in the 70's, of dirt cheap electricity and expensive as hell gasoline. Someone may have gotten the ball rolling on putting 2 and 2 together.

The gist of this podcast is there's no reason to fear Nuclear power from a "Our babies will be born with 3 legs! We'll be swimming in nuclear waste! They melt down all the time!" perspective. There's no need to dig into it further than that.

[Hindmost]

Normally I love the show and can’t wait for each episode.

However the recent episode on nuclear power, while it had some good thought provoking points in it, didn’t meet the usual standard.

Stating that that generation 2 reactors are safer than generation 1 reactors and generation 3 are safer than generation 2, sounds funny for four reasons.

1. It isn’t an argument, its an assertion. It sounded like a reading straight from the nuclear industry brochure.
2. It smells of contradiction. If Generation 3 reactors are so wonderfully safe, why are they dreaming up generation 4 and 5? Yeah there might be reasons to do with fuel efficiency and minimizing waste etc but without dealing with those reasons explicitly it sounds funny.
3. It flies in the face of our own experience. Just because there is a new generation of a product, it doesn’t mean that the problems are solved. I don’t know how many generations of Microsoft operating systems there have been but I’m sure that Vista still crashes. (Not a perfect analogy I know).
4. It’s incomplete in terms of a safety story, design is only part of the safety picture. Brian touched on this briefly by saying that operator error is taken out of the equation in later generation design but don’t say exactly how. The only other clue mentioned in the cast is that non flammable graphite is used in new generations.

You can imagine if the same argument had been used to promote Mona Vie. “Oh sure Generation 1 Mona Vie might not have had medicinal properties, but now we are onto Generation 2!”

It would have been much more satisfying if we had been let into the physics a little and how the design assumptions are changing. The basics of a nuclear reactor aren’t that complicated (lots of uranium in a small space plus something to stop it from exploding) so I’m sure it could have been done.

Brian could also have addressed the other issues that people might raise with more nuclear power stations, like potential uranium pilfering, possible increases in weapon grade plutonium, proliferation of catastrophic terrorist targets etc. I’m sure all of these have answers.

The strongest bits of the podcast were in the comparison with other power generations. Nuclear power isn’t safe, but then neither are dams, and coal mining certainly isn’t! So the death by particulate emissions data was great and very relevant. The insight that it’s not about finding a perfect place to store waste, its finding places better than we currently have is relevant too.


That opening statement by the way – about more nuclear power years ago would have hastened the introduction of electric cars. Was that just being provocative? Isn’t the take up of electric cars more to do with the relative cost of petrol and advances in battery technology than the cost of electricity? Even if electricity was very cheap that doesn’t help if batteries are heavy and expensive, which they have been until relatively recently.

What do people think?

First, the reactor is not "lots of uranium in a small space" etc. Commercial plants have very low enrichment. Now, the exploding part...they can't explode like a nuclear weapon...the physics just won't allow it. A nasty steam explosion can occur, but that is nowhere near the magnitude of a nuclear type explosion--and it is hard to get a steam explosion actually.

I haven't heard the podcast, but I can address some of your questions.

The generation 3 reactors are safer due to advances in what are called passive systems...The plants use safety systems that rely on such things as gravity and natural circulation and evaporation. Generation 2 had active features...equipment, such as pumps had to be turned on and flow initiated to flood the reactor during a loss of coolant--diesels had to start etc. Gen 3 reactors make use of water stored at high pressure to flood the core and has few active components and no active pumps--and only a few valve have to open. This means less chance of failures and less complex mechanical systems--and diesels are not even needed. In an accident scenario, the operators don't have to take action for 3 days and the plant will be safe. The gen 2 designs were 30 minutes before operator intervention was needed.

As far as the higher safety, the gen 3 plants have about 100 to 1000 times less chance of an accident causing a problems due to their design. This is based on probability analysis and long term analysis of plant components including feedback from plant operations. By analyzing failure rates and numbers of components and a bunch of other stuff, the accident rate is analyzed. It may sound like just a bunch of math, but it is a very tried and true method of analyzing failures and is used in many industries.

Gen 4 reactors are in the design stage. They have goals of reducing waste...more inherent fuel safety and producing hydrogen.

I disagree when you say nuclear power isn't safe...it has a proven track record of being very safe and providing a lot of electricity...please don't point to chernobyl...there is no comparison with current or future reactors.

As to the proliferation thing...that is just a non-starter when analyzed...first, the fuel coming from a commercial plant can't be used to make a nuclear weapon...it doesn't have the right stuff and is not weapons grade. It is also extremely difficult to process spent fuel anyhow and expensive. It requires very specialized equipment and the fuel would be very radioactive...not something that can be stolen easily. The US has been moving spent fuel around the state for over 40 years without issue. Since the US and other powers have nuclear weapons, it certainly isn't going to affect their weapons issues.

I agree waste storage is an issue, but not insurmountable...most of the waste decays away in about 300 years. There are others that would be around for millenia, but they can be burned in a gen 4 reactor or transmutted into something with a shorter half-life.

If you have some time...take a look at this

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77079

glenn

[Quath]

I majored in Nuclear Engineering in college and I thought this podcast was pretty good.

The generations are markers for the degree of technology of the reactor. A better analogy is to compare it to cars. Cars are much safer today than they were when they first came out. Stuff like air bags, shatterproof glass, seat belts, anti-lock breaks, etc were added over time. The same is true for many technologies that maintain active R&D. As long as there is R&D, then the techology will improve and you will need new Generations of reactors.

Even if you get it as safe as you want, there is always improved safety, better efficiency, and cost savings that can always be gained. So R&D will not stop unless the technology is antiquated.

I think the comparison to Vista is great. It crashes a hell of a lot less than with Windows 95. Once the bugs are all ironed out, it should be a better generation of operating system.

I think Brian did a very good job summarizing the issues. Each individual issue can be pretty complex such as passive safety, waste disposal, training, proliferation, etc.

I think the root problem is politics and cultural fears. After the high energy prices in the 1970's, the solution was just to find more oil. But that is a trick you can only do once since it is a very limited resource. During those years, we should have heavily invested in alternative energy research. Instead, nuclear power research and education went into a sharp decline.

[Newton Fig]

In general I liked this podcast. For a non-nuclear scientist I thought it explained the differences simplistically yet in enough detail as not to be a waste on an adult.

My only beef was comment about environmentalists being so wrong to condemn nuclear power plants over coal plants. My take on this part of the argument is that neither are good enough yet. Coal plants make a more immediate impact in one area of the environment. Nuclear plants make a lasting impact in their wastes though. Even the newer generations are not going to be able to eliminate that aspect.

The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25–30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year.
Radioactive Waste Management. Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre (2002). Retrieved on 2006-11-09.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Nuclear plants make a lasting impact in their wastes though. Even the newer generations are not going to be able to eliminate that aspect.
Quote:
The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25–30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year.


Radioactive Waste Management. Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre (2002). Retrieved on 2006-11-09.
Back up a few posts and read the thread that hindmost cited.

Three cubic meters per year means it would take nearly a century to fill up the space occupied by a single suburban house. And there are reactors technologies that can eliminate that waste. Most of that waste is, in fact, usable fuel.

[vita10gy]

Not to mention, again, Yucca Mountain makes the problem disappear anyway. (And I don't mean just in a 'out of sight, out of mind' context. I mean it's safe, and the waste can't effect anything important.

The waste isn't even that dangerous, as long as you don't take a 6 hour nap in a big pile of the pellets.

Waste is a non-issue, the plants don't produce all that much of it in the first place, they produce less and less as technology gets better, it's not nearly as dangerous as the general population makes it out to be, and we have a giant, safe, and secure place to store it.

[Bishop746]

There was an interesting show on the History channel(it wasnt about UFO's, bigfoot or Russian scientist) about the way spent nuclear fuel would be transported to the Yucca Mountain site. Even though the rods were going to packed into special containers and escorted the whole way, a Greenpeace spokesman said he was going to assemble protest at every point along the way. I have always had a problem with this sort of thinking. It seems that unless we develop some sort of 100% perfect system, some eviromentalist will not accept it. Would they prefer to return to the days when they fought governments who wanted to dump nuclear waste in the oceans?

I think history will judge the 1970s, 80's and 90's as thirty years wasted in the development of better energy and people will be stunned that we turned away from nuclear energy.

[geni]

I disagree when you say nuclear power isn't safe...it has a proven track record of being very safe and providing a lot of electricity...please don't point to chernobyl...there is no comparison with current or future reactors.


Yeah we've pretty much reached the point where we can run light water reactors without too many problems. But then you can do that with Magnox reactors.

That leaves fast breeders some of which (strangly the ones we actualy have a reasonable amount of data on) tend to leak coolant and reprocessing where we keep killing people/comeing up with spectactular screwups.

Problem is without those two we don't have enough U-235 to make nuclear power viable on any scale.

[mattdick]

I think the plain fear of cancer is a big part of the fear of nuclear. The problem is that if we want to reduce cancers, nuclear power waste is really not the low-hanging fruit. You need to go after chemical toxins way before you think about nuclear.

Cancer from Uranium isotopes is no worse than cancer from toluene -- at least that's what I've heard.

Nuclear is just scary because it's invisible and seems so exotic. It's really just another toxic substance we should be relatively careful about handling -- if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant, you should not handle <del>U238</del> U-235.

[Father Dagon]

2. It smells of contradiction. If Generation 3 reactors are so wonderfully safe, why are they dreaming up generation 4 and 5? Yeah there might be reasons to do with fuel efficiency and minimizing waste etc but without dealing with those reasons explicitly it sounds funny.Well, everyone has to make do with the technology available at the present moment. Before the VCR we had Super 8 and DVD will eventually be phased out in favor of Blu-Ray.

Today I bought my first memory stick, 2 GB for 120 SEK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_krona). Not very much storing space per monetary unit, but I couldn't afford the memory stick storing 437 Jiggabyte.

[m1schuld]

Did the public pay for Yucca Mountain? Are the environmental costs of nuclear power being paid for by the public while the profits are privatized? I have not been able to find an answer to this thus far. Anyone?

[KingMerv00]

Did the public pay for Yucca Mountain?

Eminent domain is my guess.

Are the environmental costs of nuclear power being paid for by the public while the profits are privatized?

We need power. Nuclear power is a good way to make it. Nuclear waste has to go somewhere. I'd like the waste to be under control so a government facility far from human beings seems like a good idea.

The profits? I share in the profits because I use electricity.

[Hindmost]

Did the public pay for Yucca Mountain? Are the environmental costs of nuclear power being paid for by the public while the profits are privatized? I have not been able to find an answer to this thus far. Anyone?

this link should answer many questions you have.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml#4

Many utilities have sued the govt. for not getting the repository open earlier...this issue has been around for a long time.

glenn

[Dragoonster]

Nuclear power has long seemed to be the best option for the immediate future (only hesitating on long-term because uranium is also a natural resouce that can run out); and I'm a fairly staunch environmentalist. I don't really get the waste argument, or at least I don't get the thrust of it. The waste is of extremly low volume compared to other systems, and I've thought future solutions would be in transporting it off the Earth.

Has this solution been presented? A simple mass production of shuttles and increase in missions could solve it, if it's really a problem. Wouldn't take space elevators or magnetic rail guns.

In any event it's pretty obvious that future dispensation of any trash including the mundane will be sovled by transport off-world. I think. Is this obvious?

[mattdick]

In any event it's pretty obvious that future dispensation of any trash including the mundane will be sovled by transport off-world. I think. Is this obvious?

Why would we bother shooting it into space? We ought to be able to place it strategically such that it gets subducted under a techtonic plate, right? Wouldn't that be really, really safe?

Note that this is an honest question, I an not a geologist but it seems pretty obvious to me.

[Quath]

I think there are two main issues with sending waste into space. One is that it takes a lot of energy to do so. The other is that an accident could impact the environment.

I think the solution lies in burning up the waste so it is not such a burden to deal with. There are some reactor concepts that have no high level waste at the end of the fuel cycle floating out there. The problem is getting funding for such research.

[Dragoonster]

Why would we bother shooting it into space? We ought to be able to place it strategically such that it gets subducted under a techtonic plate, right? Wouldn't that be really, really safe?

Note that this is an honest question, I an not a geologist but it seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm not a geologist either, but I think the time it takes for a subducting plate to go even a mile under wouldn't be much more than the time it would take for the material to be safe after underground storage.

Maybe a giant borehole straight to the mantle would achieve a similar result? Or a borehole just way, way down in the crust, far below the water table?

I think there are two main issues with sending waste into space. One is that it takes a lot of energy to do so. The other is that an accident could impact the environment.

I think the solution lies in burning up the waste so it is not such a burden to deal with. There are some reactor concepts that have no high level waste at the end of the fuel cycle floating out there. The problem is getting funding for such research.

Good points. I really have no idea of what the annual mass of nuclear waste would be either now or if we started heavily relying on it.

At least we're early in the nuclear power development cycle relative to history. Maybe funding will increase and our generation's irrational fears of it will dissapear.

[Hindmost]

I think there are two main issues with sending waste into space. One is that it takes a lot of energy to do so. The other is that an accident could impact the environment.

I think the solution lies in burning up the waste so it is not such a burden to deal with. There are some reactor concepts that have no high level waste at the end of the fuel cycle floating out there. The problem is getting funding for such research.

Using fast breeder technology, next generation designs will eliminate long lived waste as the Pu, U, Am can be fast fissioned. However, it won't get rid of high level waste--since it is the result of fission. All of the waste generated from using reprocessing of fuel would only be around for about 300 years. This would also extend the useable amount of fuel to about 1000 years. The technology is available, but would take a lot of money and a strong commitment from the public and government...which I don't think will happen in the US at least.

The depositories selected for nuclear waste are chosen for their geological stability. Salt domes are typically stable for millions of years and realitively dry. This is the reason they are considered excellent sites.

I agree sending the waste into space would be prohibitive from an energy point of view.

glenn

[Diagoras]

I agree sending the waste into space would be prohibitive from an energy point of view.
Not only that, but there's also the fear of a radioactive version of the Challenger incident. It's much safer taking a train or truck to a salt dome in the middle of the desert.

[shadron]

Nuclear is just scary because it's invisible and seems so exotic. It's really just another toxic substance we should be relatively careful about handling -- if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant, you should not handle <del>U238</del> U-235.

Neither should you be siphoning gas from your tank, or breathing ammonia from washing floors. As you say, the world can be a scary place, but it will be the monsters you know that will get you If you spend your time staying away from nuclear power.

Why would we bother shooting it into space? We ought to be able to place it strategically such that it gets subducted under a techtonic plate, right? Wouldn't that be really, really safe?

1. Today's radioactive waste may well be tomorrow's gold mine. Keep it handy.
2. Of greater volume is the low level waste - things like aprons, gloves, lab boxes, concrete, all the things that can become somewhat contaminated.
3. Subduction isn't like your typical conveyor belt into oblivion. It moves mainly in fits and starts from a human perspective, by earthquake and tsunami. You wouldn't want a bunch of barrels half-enveloped by an earthquake, and the containment shattered while it is still too near the surface. Or being melted and burped up in a quick pluton.

Not only that, but there's also the fear of a radioactive version of the Challenger incident. It's much safer taking a train or truck to a salt dome in the middle of the desert.

Eh, except for the greens you may have to run over at all the stops.

[soylent]

Eh, except for the greens you may have to run over at all the stops.

Just as well; why would you throw away fuel, or platinum group metals, or mildly radioactive technetium(cheap catalyst with fairly unique properties, corrosion resistance in carbon steel, good beta-emitter for optoelectric nuclear batteries), depleted uranium that does not need to ever be put into geological repository and might be useful in a breeder reactor some day, gamma emitters like Caesium-137 and strontium-90 that can be used for steralization of food and medical equipment and if nothing else will become harmless within a few hundred years of storage?

We don't even put mercury into a geological repository and that stuff stays nasty forever.

[jj]

Of course, nuclear energy would be even better if we started reprocessing everything we have into "ugly" fuel.

'Ugly' fuel is impure, entirely reactable (safely) fuel that is completely useless for a bomb, but that allows us to use the 95% of the energy that we fail to use to date in nuclear fuel.

[Trevor]

I thought it was a good show. I am a big fan of nuclear power. It is far cleaner than coal or other fossil fuel power plants and its energy output is far greater than wind and solar. It is also able to be built anywhere, unlike hydroelectric dams or geothermal plants.

I think more people need to know that nuclear power is not the oogy boogy man.

I heard that hippies were trying to get a bill passed (intent on ultimately banning nuclear power plants) by means of requiring a certain radioactivity pollution minimum by all power plants. And I heard that this idea had to be canned when they realized that coal plants emit more radioactivity than nuclear power plants. I am not sure if this story is a myth. If anyone knows, let me know.

[jj]

I heard that hippies were trying to get a bill passed (intent on ultimately banning nuclear power plants) by means of requiring a certain radioactivity pollution minimum by all power plants. And I heard that this idea had to be canned when they realized that coal plants emit more radioactivity than nuclear power plants. I am not sure if this story is a myth. If anyone knows, let me know.

I have no idea if it's true, but I have indeed pointed several loads of environmento-dips at the facts about radiation release from coal plants. I doubt I'm the only one who has.

[DeGuerre]

Sorry to open this up again, but I'm a recent listener to Skeptoid, and I have some thoughts on this episode that didn't come up in the thread so far.

Note: I tried to add this as a comment to the podcast page itself, but I ran into the character limit. I've edited this slightly from what's there; this should be considered the "correct" version.

The start of the final thought from the podcast sets off all sorts of internal skeptical alarm bells:

There is a safe and clean solution to our energy crisis, gasoline prices, and global warming.

First off, had Three Mile Island and Chernobyl not occurred, the USA would not now be covered in Generation III+ reactors, because those designs are more recent than either of those accidents. A more likely scenario is that there would simply be more Generation II reactors, perhaps with some newer designs coming on line around now. In other words, you're only generating as little active waste as you are because of the moratorium on building new reactors.

Second, nuclear power is not "clean". At best, it's "cleaner" (though, I might add, still not as clean as geothermal, hydro or the latest generation of photovoltaics). Uranium needs to be mined, transported and enriched. Mining is an inherently dirty process. Many recent mines use in-situ leaching, which has a poorly-understood environmental impact. Enrichment, in particular, uses a huge amount of energy: The US first transports the fuel to its one enrichment plant, then uses the output of two coal power stations to run the enrichment, then transports it back to the power stations.

Thirdly, and most crucially, nuclear power suffers from exactly the same inefficiencies as coal and oil generation.

According to the Monthly Energy Review, September 1998 (the figures might have changed by then), 67% of the energy input is lost in conversion, 5% is consumed inside power plants and 9% is lost in the distribution network. In particular, a significant portion of the energy created in modern power plants is sent straight up flues or cooling towers, and a significant portion of what's left is lost sending it across the country. And, of course, we then send additional additional energy to homes to heat them.

Now industry needs a lot of power, so I'm certainly not knocking the idea of large power plants. However for residential and office purposes, central power generation simply makes no sense.

You can probably tell by now that I'm a huge fan of distributed cogeneration. The technology is here, and it works. Moreover, it lets you pick the power source that makes the most sense for the local area. If it's sunny, use some solar. If you have geography that's suitable for geothermal, hydro, wave or wind, use that. Most areas at the very least have some of the raw materials for biogas already present (waste plant matter and sewerage). And, of course, hydrogen can easily be generated locally (all you need is power and water), which solves most of the problems of how to transport it to the pump.

OK, summary:

There is no single answer to the problem of energy. However, there are two main things that must be part of any complete solution.

Fix the inefficiencies in our current generation and distribution system. Use fuel sources that are appropriate for the locale.

Nuclear power should, I have no doubt, be part of that, especially for industry. But merely going nuclear cannot solve all our problems.

[Quath]

First off, had Three Mile Island and Chernobyl not occurred, the USA would not now be covered in Generation III+ reactors, because those designs are more recent than either of those accidents. A more likely scenario is that there would simply be more Generation II reactors, perhaps with some newer designs coming on line around now. In other words, you're only generating as little active waste as you are because of the moratorium on building new reactors.
This one is tough because it is hard to argue possible futures. A lot of research and development was also cut due to these events as well. These events also curbed a lot of investment into nuclear. So you may have started out with more Gen 2 reactors, there may have been more development that encourages the industry to keep upgrading.

Second, nuclear power is not "clean". At best, it's "cleaner" (though, I might add, still not as clean as geothermal, hydro or the latest generation of photovoltaics). Uranium needs to be mined, transported and enriched. Mining is an inherently dirty process. Many recent mines use in-situ leaching, which has a poorly-understood environmental impact. Enrichment, in particular, uses a huge amount of energy: The US first transports the fuel to its one enrichment plant, then uses the output of two coal power stations to run the enrichment, then transports it back to the power stations.
This is a good point. (Enrichment could be done with nuclear power, not coal, so this is more of a political/implementation issue.) What I found to be the interesting take-away message is that the public is ok with the dirtiness of coal/oil but worry about nuclear. I think Brian is making the point that if someone is ok with the dirtiness of coal, they should be ok with the cleaner nuclear.

You can probably tell by now that I'm a huge fan of distributed cogeneration. The technology is here, and it works. Moreover, it lets you pick the power source that makes the most sense for the local area. If it's sunny, use some solar. If you have geography that's suitable for geothermal, hydro, wave or wind, use that. Most areas at the very least have some of the raw materials for biogas already present (waste plant matter and sewerage). And, of course, hydrogen can easily be generated locally (all you need is power and water), which solves most of the problems of how to transport it to the pump.
There are problems with many of the smaller, local energy sources. Natural gas contributes to green house problem. Many solar cell have heavy metal waste disposal problems. Many places that need energy (like heating) are in cold, overcast areas away from geothermal energy. It takes a lot of energy to generate hydrogen (which is one of the reasons that nuclear power is targeted as a way to lower the cost of making hydrogen since it can operate at very high temperatures).

There is no single answer to the problem of energy. However, there are two main things that must be part of any complete solution.

Fix the inefficiencies in our current generation and distribution system. Use fuel sources that are appropriate for the locale.

Nuclear power should, I have no doubt, be part of that, especially for industry. But merely going nuclear cannot solve all our problems.
Despite my minor disagreements, I agree with you overall. I tend to favor a comprehensive approach to the energy issue. Now that being said, there are some designs that people are researching that has nuclear as the major source of energy like the LIFE engine which could burn nuclear waste for its energy. (I can not provide the link since I have not posted enough, but you can find it at lasers.llnl.gov.)

[kbmast]

It wasn't the worst episode by a long shot. One thing I would take issue with is the later generation reactors are always safer. This isn't the case with some more modern designs, such as fast breeder reactors.

Fission in Uranium occurs more easily with slower neutrons, or thermal neutrons. Chernobyl like other Gen 1 reactors used graphite as the neutron moderator to slow the neutrons down. Water was then used as a coolant, and to generate steam. Bubbles forming in the coolant water would increase the intensity of the reaction it the reactor. This is called a positive void coefficient. The more bubbles the fast the reactor would run, the more head it would generate and the more steam would be produced. It's a positive feedback loop.

Generation II reactors use water as the neutron moderator. Either light water 95% of the time or heavy water 5% of the time, depending on how enriched the uranium placed into the reactor will be. The benefit of this is that is a bubble or steam forms in the coolant water the void created actually slows the reaction down. Because this water is being used to slow the fast neutrons to thermal neutrons for the reaction any voids in the water will inhibit the reaction. If you lose your coolant the reaction will stop. In theory this will prevent any meltdowns. This is called a negative void coefficient.

Fast breeder reactors create more fuel than they consume are in fact more unstable than a Generation II reactor even though they would be considered III+. As the name implies they use fast neutrons to power their reactions. Not only does the amount of fuel in the core increase the longer the fuel has been in the core but you're left with the same problem, that any void in the coolant creates more fast neutrons and tends to facilitate the reaction. The advantage of the breeder reactor is that it creates fuel for other reactors.

There are no fast breeder reactors in the US and only a couple in the world. I believe they're developing similar negative feedback loops for this type of reactor as well. But again, just because a reactor technology is more advanced or considered to be a later generation does not mean that it's always safer. To be honest I would have no problems living next door to a Gen II reactor.

[Bobby078]

"You need to go after chemical toxins way before you think about nuclear."

Is the waste totally untreatable?

I am suddenly reminded of nuclear waste being dumped off the coast of italy by the mafia. I wonder what the long term results will be.

[tyr_13]

Well, everyone has to make do with the technology available at the present moment. Before the VCR we had Super 8 and DVD will eventually be phased out in favor of Blu-Ray.

Today I bought my first memory stick, 2 GB for 120 SEK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_krona). Not very much storing space per monetary unit, but I couldn't afford the memory stick storing 437 Jiggabyte.

Complete derail, but SDXC (http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/07/sdxc-memory-cards-promise-2tb-of-storage-300mbps-transfer/).

[isaone]

I think it was far from the worst and in fact quite good. The anti-nuke'rs are simpler not rational or interested in actual facts when emotional appeals are so much easier and cheaper to generate.

[Eligbak]

Reactor design can be rather complex, and there are many different subtypes within the reactor generations. They were probably more interested in presenting the facts in a timely manner than creating a uber thorough 6 hour long movie that no one would watch.
I'd like to see this six-hour movie, or ten hours for that matter. Nobody in the world hates nuclear power more than we Germans, I suspect. If the nuclear industry gave everybody 1000 Euros every year, they wouldn't be allowed to build new reactors. That's why we'll have the old ones run a few years or decades longer than planned, and even this causes much screaming and yelping.

I have never fully bought into the idea that nuclear power will kill us all sooner or later, but I do mind radioactive desposits from one of our leaking nuclear waste sites in the ground water. So I'd be very, very interested in these apparently (almost) waste-free new reactor types, preferrably from a neutral source. Can anyone oblige?
(Providing this thread gets resurrected - sorry, I'm new)

[John Albert]

Even though the rods were going to packed into special containers and escorted the whole way, a Greenpeace spokesman said he was going to assemble protest at every point along the way. I have always had a problem with this sort of thinking. It seems that unless we develop some sort of 100% perfect system, some eviromentalist will not accept it. Would they prefer to return to the days when they fought governments who wanted to dump nuclear waste in the oceans?

A few years ago, I had a couple Greenpeace representatives at my door soliciting donations. Part of their 'sales pitch' was to try and alarm me with the information that a railroad in my immediate neighborhood was intended to be used for the transport of toxic, hazardous nuclear waste. Feigning alarm at this appalling state of affairs, I invited them in for a little chat.

After brewing us all a round of green tea, I sat down with them and asked for specifics about which facilities were the origin of the spent fuel, and which local railroads in the City of Chicago were to be used. I know for a fact that we have no nuclear reactors in our immediate vicinity which would be a likely source of this material, and Chicago does not lie along any reasonable paths between any of the nuclear facilities to the North or East and the state of Nevada. None of the railroads I know of in my area would be likely routes for this purpose.

They were unable to answer any of my specific questions, but insisted that nobody really knows because "the power industry is shipping all this nuclear waste in secret though our own backyards over ordinary railways in unmarked containers without the public's knowledge." So I asked how Greenpeace were able to find out about it. One of them then suggested I make a donation to Greenpeace so I could receive a newsletter to find out all about these sorts of things that "they" don't want me to know.

Of course, I thanked them for their time and sent them on their way.

Now I appreciate Greenpeace's commitment to protecting the environment, and I appreciate some of the work they do. But I have to ask, what the hell does Greenpeace want or expect to be done with all this stuff? What do they hope to accomplish by spreading wanton FUD about the handling of nuclear waste materials? Do they really believe that leaving toxic waste sitting around in densely populated areas scattered throughout the country is a better solution than transporting it to a secure and remote location?

While I don't doubt their sincerity, I believe their zeal actually gets in the way of their own common sense.

[Mark6]

Now I appreciate Greenpeace's commitment to protecting the environment, and I appreciate some of the work they do. But I have to ask, what the hell does Greenpeace want or expect to be done with all this stuff? What do they hope to accomplish by spreading wanton FUD about the handling of nuclear waste materials? Do they really believe that leaving toxic waste sitting around in densely populated areas scattered throughout the country is a better solution than transporting it to a secure and remote location?
Actual quote I heard from a Greenpeace activist some 20 years ago:

"We have no idea what you can do with nuclear waste. We just know what you cannot do with it."

Seriously, I am quite sure Greenpeace's goal is not to "leave toxic waste sitting around in densely populated areas scattered throughout the country" -- it is to stop its production entirely. By whatever underhanded means necessary.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here is a video of an unrecycled fuel transport cask undergoing crash tests:

U1nvRBk4W3o

Cars today are designed to sacrifice their own shells and frames in order to absorb impact energy and save the passengers. Nuclear transport casks are designed the exact opposite way. They are build to destroy and kill everything around them in a crash before suffering so much as a scratch. The engineers who design these things consider the lives of the poor schlubs who drive the trucks and trains as secondary to the importance of not allowing a leak as a result of an accident.

As long as I don't live within 100 yards of the train tracks (a 25 ton cask likely would not get tossed far even in the worst of accidents), they could ship whatever the hell they want near my neighborhood.

[TraneWreck]

Back up a few posts and read the thread that hindmost cited.

Three cubic meters per year means it would take nearly a century to fill up the space occupied by a single suburban house. And there are reactors technologies that can eliminate that waste. Most of that waste is, in fact, usable fuel.

I would also point out that waste is a problem (albeit an exaggerated one) based on contemporary technology.

I have far more confidence that we'll figure out better ways to deal with nuclear waste over the next 3000 years than I have confidence that we will develop a better energy system to move away from fossil fuels in the time frame necessary to deal with AGW.

It's basically a thousand-year punt.

[Eligbak]

I have far more confidence that we'll figure out better ways to deal with nuclear waste over the next 3000 years...
It's not only the nuclear waste that is the problem, but the whole *nuclear* issue in the public's mind.
The next big scandal has been simmering since the 1990's - Depleted Uranium ammunition and how it's related to cancer and birth defects. More is being done on this subject, and it seems to be a safe bet that breathing in DU residue is among the most unhealthy things you can do.

The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children (2006)
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5146778547681767408&

[Tomtomkent]

Telling people to be scared of nuclear power because of incidents that happened decades ago is like telling people not to fly because the R101 and the Hindenberg. Later generation nuclear power stations will have better safety precautions. I might not know the exact workings, but i know enough to have seen that the way the reactions are controlled fail safe. Technology developes because when old stuff breaks down we want to replace it with the best possible product. Sure, the engineering firms could sell us the same old powerplants. But then why have a nuclear site at dungeoness when Battersea could still be spewing out coal smoke over London? Why buy a car with seatbelts airbags and crumplezones when I could rattle around in a model T deathtrap? Why have the National Grid protected by vacuum circuit breakers in an SF6 resevoir when we could still use oil filled circuit breakers full of asbestos and pcbs?

Nuclear power has been going for decade with so few inccidents you probably know most of them by name. The alternatives are gas and coal, which have far more pressing concerns.

[timhau]

While I don't doubt their sincerity, I believe their zeal actually gets in the way of their own common sense.

I do have doubts about the sincerity of the organization. What I don't doubt is the sincerity of the kids who solicit donations in the downtown shopping areas, which is why I just use a simple "Not interested, sorry" instead of sarcasm whenever they try to bother me.