Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[Lonewulf]

Just to note:

Originally Posted by Luddite

While I've always been concerned about the risks of nuclear power, I would be willing to consider it if vital services depended on it. But it's very difficult for me to justify telling first nations people that we need to keep mining uranium on their lands so that we can enjoy a coffee on an air conditioned patio. If we continued to use nuclear at current rates (not even an expansion), at the most optimistic assessment, the current technology could provide power for 3 generations. The waste we would leave behind for 250.

I'd like to see evidence for that. According to Freedom For Fission),

Quote:

Powerful and plentiful

If we use all uranium and thorium to its full potential, nuclear power can provide our needs for over 50,000 years and it would not require strip-mining the entire planet to achieve this. The fission of one nucleus of uranium-235 yields over 20,000,000 times the energy of the combustion of one molecule of methane. While a large coal-fired power station needs many trainloads of fuel per day, a similarly sized nuclear power station will only need a truckload of fresh fuel per year. This means that nuclear power is not subject to the same price fluctuations as fossil fuels, which are dependent on a constant stream of fuel. This means that nuclear power can be depended on when on cloudy, calm days amid political turmoil with fossil fuel providers, other sources fail.
Clean and compact

Nuclear power is not what most possible would consider when thinking of clean forms of power, but it is in fact one of the cleanest. A nuclear power station does not emit any significant amount of pollution into the atmosphere, from particulates to heavy metals to sulphur dioxide. In fact, because all the by-products are contained, the local residents of a coal-fired power station will receive a higher dosage of radiation than the local residents of a nuclear power station. The nuclear industry manages its waste far more responsibly than any other industry, including those that deal with some very dangerous chemical waste. This is made possible because, since the fuel put into the cycle is so small in quantity, the waste taken out is also very small in quantity. Despite the furore over radioactive wastes, it is in fact compact and easy to handle, far easier than the massive quantities of chemical wastes from other industries.

If someone can refute any of that with, you know, science, I'd like to see it.

From this section: http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/cyc/fuel.html

Quote:

Supplies of uranium-235 available by extraction in line with today's uranium prices will only last for fifty years. It should be noted that this is actually not as pessimistic as the estimates for availability of other minerals or fuels. However, uranium-235 lies elsewhere in abundance, albeit with increased extraction costs, which are ready for use once the market makes them economical. Uranium is overall a fairly common metal, about as common as tin or zinc.

Currently, uranium is extracted from rich ores, which are a far more concentrated source. This makes sense economically for the time being while they are available. However, there are other sources, such as granite and sedimentary rocks that contain uranium. Even coal contains uranium, which is usually released into the atmosphere in coal-fired power stations. It is estimated that the trace amounts of uranium present in the coal could provide more energy through fission than the coal itself through combustion. Of course, at present, burning the coal is cheaper than extracting uranium from it.

It is currently estimated, and indeed estimates are constantly increased in all mineral and fuel resources and new information becomes available, that supplies of uranium-235 from these conventional resources are sufficient for over 200 years at present consumption. However, there are less conventional sources, which can offer still more reserves of the isotope, such as phosphate deposits and especially seawater, provided the market makes the significantly increased prices economical.

But this is only the beginning. A nuclear fuel cycle relying exclusively on uranium-235 is doomed to a shorter life because it is only 0.7% of natural uranium. The key to extending the resource is to make use of uranium-238, which comprises the vast majority of natural uranium. In thermal reactors, this is limited because uranium-238 cannot be made to fission by thermal neutrons. It can, however, be bred into other isotopes, which are fissile. When spent fuel comes out of the reactor, it generally contains around 1% plutonium from just this plus a trace of minor actinides. Under the closed cycle, this resource is extracted and fabricated into MOX fuel. This helps to extend the resource further.

[luddite]

Quote:

You imagine wrong. I cannot speak to Canada's experience in particular, and perhaps your nuclear industry has been a disaster. But Canada != the world. In the US, projected power demands (which include improvements in efficiency) cannot be met by renewables alone. There will either be an increase in the use of fossil fuels (coal in particular), or an increase in the use of nuclear power. And coal is NOT more environmentally friendly (from any standpoint) than nuclear.

If nuclear were the only option to replace coal, I would regretfully agree. I have not looked at the specifics of energy use in the United States, but the per capita energy use overall is almost as high as Canada's. I would be very surprised if it were not possible to halve consumption with little appreciable difference to lifestyle. In fact, I would be surprised if you couldn't have lifestyle enhancements. Apart from the avoided health and environmental impacts of coal and nuclear, a well-insulated house that breathes at night and retains a comfortable ambient temperature during the day is a pleasure to live in. You don't get fan noise, you don't get the dryness, you don't get discomfort because of radiant penetration. Large flat buildings can be built with green roofs. That's mandatory now in Japan. The designs can be delightful.

Responding to demand increases with constant supply increases is what got us into our present pickle. It will not solve our problems. We do not lack technological fixes. What we need is courage and imagination.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by luddite

What we need is courage and imagination.

As well as facts, research, and study.

[luddite]

Quote:

ANd luddite has a very apporpriate name. He seems to be of the school that thinks that using power to make life more comfortable is somehow evil in and of itself. A sort of "Enviorimental Puritan".

I chose the name quite deliberately. I'm not unaware that my views put me in this camp.

But I cannot agree with your statement. I do not think that using power is inherently evil. However, as global warming and problems with sulfur and flooding of lands for hydro power indicate, power generation is rarely without consequence. A reasonable and thoughtful person will weigh the advantages of his personal comfort with the consequences of his actions.

Quote:

But let's face facts.People who live in warm climates where it gets very hot in the summer are not going to give up Air Conditioning,unless big brother tells them too.

Can't agree with that either. In Ontario, we introduced the Peaksaver program two summers ago, hoping to save 7 MW with people who signed up to have a device put on their air conditioner, which would remotely turn off their air conditioner during peak afternoon periods.

Within a few weeks the 7 MW target was hit, with over 100 MW signed up for over the course of that summer. When people were surveyed about why they signed up the number 1 reason was "civic duty". In warm climates, houses might arguably need less air conditioning because they're designed for hot weather in the first place. That's certainly the case for Brazil.

But I'm also all for Big Brother telling people to do things. We need to balance needs, comfort and consequences. Building a nuclear power plant is no less an imposition than changing the building code to something more sensible. If I were to choose between the two, I'd say that smart building enhances life a great deal more than the ability to keep my microwave on standby all day, eating up more energy sitting there than I use to cook in the thing.

[luddite]

Quote:

As well as facts, research, and study.

Absolutely.

[mhaze]

Luddite, I am personally your complete opposite, more a techno fanatic gadget freak. However, on the issue of nuclear power, the actual numbers tell me that it is the way that civilization must go. There's no like or dislike or wishful thinking there.

Once you've got the nuke plants, you can have all kind of cool toys without environmental consequences. High power electric sports cars would be just one example. Plug in hybrids. You've got political and social consequences, such as no further dependence on middle east oil.

Oil isn't going away, because we make lots of things out of it. All aircraft require hydrocarbon fuel. Heavy equipment and trucks require diesel pretty much, as do all boats and ships. But the fraction of oil that's used in the transportation industry and home heating could go down to perhaps 20% of what it is today.

The role that nuclear can play, cannot be played by any other card in the deck.

[Lonewulf]

I'm a techno geek with a desire to become a cyborg.

So I guess I'm even further the opposite. =D

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by luddite

I would be very surprised if it were not possible to halve consumption with little appreciable difference to lifestyle.

That's nice that you'd be surprised, but why on earth did you ever come to this conclusion? Do you actually have and facts to back this up, or are you just speculating? Because if it's the latter, you'll have to pardon me for thinking it's not exactly a firm basis on which to create an energy policy.

[luddite]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Just to note:

I'd like to see evidence for that.

If someone can refute any of that with, you know, science, I'd like to see it.

The problem I've encountered is that there is a tremendous disjoint between the rosy predictions of nuclear supply projected by the IAEA, AECL, World Nuclear Organization, Euronuclear, and other nuclear proponents, and the dismal predictions by environmental organizations.

For the purposes of this forum, I suspect the authority of environmental organizations would be scorned.

However, the authority of nuclear proponents should be suspect too. They are inflated to promote nuclear just as surely as oil companies inflate the projections of oil supply.

However, unlike with petroleum supply assessments, there is virtually no overlap between the two sides in the nuclear debate and I've found very few authorities that I could call even relatively unbiased.

The paper you quote refers to thorium, which I excluded in my carefully worded "current rates" using "current technology". I believe 3 generations is optimistic for current uranium supplies, with many assessments indicating that processing of low-grade uranium deposits is becoming increasingly impracticable even now.

For an indication, see the Post Carbon Institute site. I included the URL initially but wasn't allowed to include it.

For the record, the Post Carbon Institute is one institution which does a more careful weighing of the pros and cons of nuclear power. Its members are concerned about the limited supply of petroleum and are willing to consider all alternatives, but are peopled both by those who embrace nuclear and those who oppose it, as well as those somewhere in between.

Another organization which somewhat straddles the two ends is the Pembina Institute in Canada, which has traditionally been supported by power producers and the petroleum and natural gas industries. Given their funding sources, they are remarkably able to promote energy reductions. Their assessment of nuclear is scathing.

But the authority I trust most is David Hughes. Again, I'm not permitted to give you a reference.

I met with David personally over lunch. He is a senior geologist with the Geological Survey of Canada with 35 years experience. He has positions with the National Energy Board and Natural Resources Canada. He is a nuclear proponent because he foresees shortages with all energy supplies and thinks nuclear may be a necessary interim measure while we learn to dramatically reduce our energy dependence.

Over his 35 years, David has seen various fuels come up with the great hope of becoming the next great panacea. He is skeptical. He is a soft-spoken man who carefully words his statements.

When asked about the promise of nuclear, he dismisses thorium. He dismisses fusion. He dismisses anything that isn't operational now in the current economy (actually, what he says is "You keep working on that. In the meantime, I suggest you figure out how to reduce your energy dependence by 80%").

He has seen too many hopeful prospects sit around for decades. Solar, wind, tidal power, biofuels, algal growth. He points out that even the promised supplies of natural gas have never materialized, that even coal is limited. He states quite clearly that it is not a supply issue. It is an issue of economic deliverability. And in this context he foresees upcoming crises in nuclear just as surely as he foresees crises in oil and natural gas supply.

He talks about the classic resource curve, where supplies become increasingly less practicable to recover. He points out that 85% of the highest grade uranium supplies from Canada have already been extracted, and that the remaining supplies are much poorer. He points out that only 2/3 of North American supplies of uranium come from mines. 1/3 is purchased from Russia from old weapons stocks, under an agreement set to expire in 2012, and which Russia has already indicated it has no intention of renewing.

Given these conditions, he foresees serious disturbances in supply beyond that year even to maintain the current nuclear fleet. And this is a man who still thinks that building new reactors to replace the decaying old ones is probably a good idea.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Luddite

I met with David personally over lunch. He is a senior geologist with the Geological Survey of Canada with 35 years experience. He has positions with the National Energy Board and Natural Resources Canada. He is a nuclear proponent because he foresees shortages with all energy supplies and thinks nuclear may be a necessary interim measure while we learn to dramatically reduce our energy dependence.

Over his 35 years, David has seen various fuels come up with the great hope of becoming the next great panacea. He is skeptical. He is a soft-spoken man who carefully words his statements.

When asked about the promise of nuclear, he dismisses thorium. He dismisses fusion. He dismisses anything that isn't operational now in the current economy (actually, what he says is "You keep working on that. In the meantime, I suggest you figure out how to reduce your energy dependence by 80%").

An interesting thing to say.

I guess we should just give up and not build anything new. I mean, no possible reason to build more nuclear power plants, use breeder reactors, etc...

[luddite]

Quote:

Graduate Poster

mhaze's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Antonio Tx
Posts: 1,645
My Profile

Luddite, I am personally your complete opposite, more a techno fanatic gadget freak. However, on the issue of nuclear power, the actual numbers tell me that it is the way that civilization must go. There's no like or dislike or wishful thinking there.

Once you've got the nuke plants, you can have all kind of cool toys without environmental consequences. High power electric sports cars would be just one example. Plug in hybrids. You've got political and social consequences, such as no further dependence on middle east oil.

Actually, I'm a techno-geak myself. I think flow batteries and flywheels are unbelievably cool. But I do try to weigh in the environmental consequences as well. And I don't share your assessment that they disappear with nuclear. First of all, there are the considerable impacts of nuclear generation to begin with. But when you're talking about sports cars, you also need to consider the impacts of road construction and maintenance, just to start.

Quote:

Oil isn't going away, because we make lots of things out of it. All aircraft require hydrocarbon fuel. Heavy equipment and trucks require diesel pretty much, as do all boats and ships. But the fraction of oil that's used in the transportation industry and home heating could go down to perhaps 20% of what it is today.

I work with an engineer who routinely refurbishes existing structures to obtain 5-fold reductions in overall energy use. The majority is in space heating. Even greater savings are possible in new construction. I have been in houses so well insulated that they require no heating system at all in Canadian winters. They are more spacious and brighter, and don't have the fan noise, the humidity and dryness problems... The incremental cost is no more than 5% and can actually be negative because you eliminate the cost of ductwork and furnaces. Insulation is cheap.

Insulation is also really cool for techno-geeks, with things like air-gel coming on the market.

Transportation reductions should be similar. We need to return to walkable communities, which are a lot more healthful and pleasant to live in. What transportation needs remain can be delivered primarily by mass transportation. Personal vehicles of the future would be something along the lines of Amory Lovins's Hypercars, another techno-miracle that's lightweight and resource friendly.

What we are experiencing is a failure of imagination from too many years of energy dependence. A brighter future is possible.

[luddite]

Quote:

An interesting thing to say.

I thought so too. He is not suggesting we do nothing. Quite the contrary. He is suggesting we do everything, including maxing out all possible generation and still learning to reduce our energy dependence by 80%. I really, really hope that Mr. Hughes is wrong. But his credentials are impeccable, his manner calm.

When he gives speeches, he shows a series of slides that graphically demonstrate the problem in a way that words fail. Over the last 100 years for example, we have learned to use 43 times the energy we used to use. All of the increase has been from non-renewable sources now in decline. For each and every one of these non-renewable sources, discovery rates have not kept up with demand increases for decades. The United States are now a net importer of coal.

[robinson]

Hmmm

[robinson]

I tried to get the real information about cost of Nuclear vs Solar and Wind and other "alternative" power sources. Based on the data, it looks like "alternative" power sources, are actually cheaper, especially in the long term profits.

Not that the data is easy to come by, or accurate, but solar power, for countries with lots of sun, may be the next big thing.

[luddite]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's nice that you'd be surprised, but why on earth did you ever come to this conclusion? Do you actually have and facts to back this up, or are you just speculating? Because if it's the latter, you'll have to pardon me for thinking it's not exactly a firm basis on which to create an energy policy.

Just looking over electricity consumption over the years. In 1950 it was about 2000 kWh annually for the average household. By 1970 it was 7000 kWh per household. By 1990 it was almost 12,000 per capita (not per household) and in 2003 it was over 13,000 per capita.

Over this time, the principal increases in residential electricity use came from air conditioning as the number one contributor, followed by things like televisions, washing machines, dryers, dishwashers and home heating.

Air conditioning and heating can be virtually eliminated with proper insulation. The others can be much more efficient. I don't own a dishwasher or television and rarely use my dryer. My life is not fundamentally altered.

I know that large energy demands are attributable to pumping water to and from buildings. Growth here is disproportionately large, since cities tend to grow out from water sources, increasing the distance water needs to travel to get to new developments. Enormous reductions are possible. We can recycle a lot of our water for washing clothes, watering lawns or, at the very least, flushing our poop. We can harvest rainwater. Overflow rainwater should be allowed to seep into the ground. A side benefit would be an improvement in the health of our rivers. If we really want to get creative, we can separate urine and poop, send the poop to an anaerobic digester and dilute the urine for fertilizer. The geek in me loves this idea.

Water heating should be dramatically reduced with solar thermal pre-heat.

In Ontario the most rapid growth in electricity demand has been in the commercial/institutional services sector, according to the Ontario Power Authority. Within this sector the single largest end-use is lighting. While over 1/3 of these businesses use energy efficient lighting, the sheer scale of lighting has increased. (Incidentally, this must contribute to a higher air-conditioning load, which in some cases generates a corresponding heating load for people uncomfortable in refrigerators). Most of this increase can easily be eliminated with little to no effect on our lifestyle.

If you read George Monbiot's "Heat", you get a very good description of today's supermarkets, with decorative lighting to enhance the appearance of food. Displays also take up space, increasing space conditioning costs and putting pressure on real estate. Very little of this contributes to measurable lifestyle improvement.

Refrigeration accounts for 15% of a household's average energy use. The average refrigerator today is much more energy efficient than its ancestor, but it is also much larger. In 1947, the average refrigerator held less than 10 cubic feet. Today's average is well over double at 23 cubic feet even though the average family is smaller. If we store the same amount of food in a larger refrigerator, the refrigerator has to work harder. It's not improving our lives. If we're storing more food, it's either going to waste or it's going to waist. Either way, no improvement to our lives.

People now illuminate their pictures, their closets, their counters, their cabinets. I have a friend who bought an energy-efficient refrigerator that, to his frustration, came with 3 incandescent lightbulbs.

Computers are getting more and more efficient. Enormous reductions are possible. If they were turned off at night a huge additional amount could be saved. Televisions and microwaves use more energy during the time they are on standby mode than when they are in use.

And then there are the hundreds of useless gadgets.

Truth is, for our personal well-being, the biggest thing we need electricity for is lighting. With LED lighting making it into the market, we can get this necessity with a tiny fraction of the electricity currently produced.

greenparty.ca/en/node/1384
earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?action=select_countries&theme=6&variable _ID=574
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9092(197405)56%3A2%3C419%3AECSRDE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
conservationbureau.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1502&SiteNodeID=168
energy.gov.on.ca/opareport/Part%203%20-%20Background%20Reports/Part%203-4%20Conservation%20and%20Demand%20Management%20Iss ues.pdf

[Slimething]

Originally Posted by luddite

Truth is, for our personal well-being, the biggest thing we need electricity for is lighting. With LED lighting making it into the market, we can get this necessity with a tiny fraction of the electricity currently produced.

greenparty.ca/en/node/1384
earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?action=select_countries&theme=6&variable _ID=574
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9092(197405)56%3A2%3C419%3AECSRDE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
conservationbureau.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1502&SiteNodeID=168
energy.gov.on.ca/opareport/Part%203%20-%20Background%20Reports/Part%203-4%20Conservation%20and%20Demand%20Management%20Iss ues.pdf

Uh huh. When you and your greenie friends live in the country, you just give me a holler about all you need is lighting, OK?

[Professor Yaffle]

I think the problem in convincing most people (and I'm still open minded on the issue) is that big problem have occurred within living memory, and when nuclear stuff goes wrong, it goes wrong in a big way. Added to that is that disposal hasn't really been sorted and it seems like the attitude is that we keep going and hope that technology has sorted out the problem of disposal by the time it becomes a big problem. I can understand why that would concern people.

I am a non technical but reasonably intelligent person who hasn't made up her mind on this issue. Feel free to try to convince me.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by robinson

I tried to get the real information about cost of Nuclear vs Solar and Wind and other "alternative" power sources. Based on the data, it looks like "alternative" power sources, are actually cheaper, especially in the long term profits.

Not that the data is easy to come by, or accurate, but solar power, for countries with lots of sun, may be the next big thing.

Not according to this chart: http://goldpactpower.com/chart.jpg

It seems that nuclear is on the range of coal in costs, and "green" solutions are far more costly.

As for solar power, you get hardly any solar energy. 4 kw/hour, I think, was the average for the largest solar panel in Germany (I may be wrong). You get hardly anything for all the space you put the solar panels down for... oh, and solar panels aren't "clean". In the production process, the chemicals that go into making them are rather toxic.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

I think the problem in convincing most people (and I'm still open minded on the issue) is that big problem have occurred within living memory, and when nuclear stuff goes wrong, it goes wrong in a big way. Added to that is that disposal hasn't really been sorted and it seems like the attitude is that we keep going and hope that technology has sorted out the problem of disposal by the time it becomes a big problem. I can understand why that would concern people.

I am a non technical but reasonably intelligent person who hasn't made up her mind on this issue. Feel free to try to convince me.

First of all, "big problems" with what...? Chernobyl? No nuclear power plant is made even partly on the scale of Chernobyl. Power plants today are much safer, and have been updated with newer technology. The chances of a failure are much much closer to nil than ever before. Also, Chernobyl was run entirely hazardously, with safety protocols essentially thrown out the window. In fact, everything about Chernobyl was a disaster. You'll never see another Chernobyl as long as you live, I bet you $10,000.

As for pollution, read here: http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/saf/pollution.html

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/cyc/waste.html

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/...torsafety.html

Quote:

Solid waste from coal burning, which includes the permanently toxic metals mercury, arsenic and selenium, is produced a thousand times faster. This cannot, by any standard, be characterised as fit for human consumption either. It is however, not subject to the same stringent controls and accounting as nuclear waste is. Because of its large quantity, to impose similarly proportionate controls would be prohibitive. In addition, fossil fuel burning also releases large gaseous emissions into the atmosphere including sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as well as particulates.

Quote:

Nuclear waste remains toxic for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
Decay curve for spent PWR fuel
Figure 2- Decay curve for spent PWR fuel. (Image courtesy of the WNA)

Tens or hundreds of thousands? No. Unreprocessed spent fuel will have decayed to below the activity of the original uranium ore in under ten thousand years. Figure 2 shows the generic decay curve for spent PWR fuel. Figures such as 50,000, 100,000, or sometimes millions of years get tossed around, but they are more likely to have originated from a random number generator (hyperbole always involves randomly large numbers). The radioactivity of the original uranium ore is generally used as a benchmark since it is what we would be dealing with if it were not for nuclear power. Uranium ore is also not especially radioactive and so represents a relativity benign level of activity.

It should also be remembered that radioisotopes decay exponentially. Spent fuel does not remain glowing green for ten thousand years at which point it stops being significantly radioactive. Throughout the millennia, it is continually decaying, becoming less and less radioactive, less and less hazardous, as time goes on. And because the decay is exponential, most of it happens in the early stages so that the majority of time period is spent at a significantly lower level of activity than at initial disposal and in fact a level that is not especially hazardous at all. Compare this to those mercury and arsenic solid wastes from coal burning, which will be just as hazardous in ten thousand years as they are today.

BTW, I know people will claim that the author of this is an evil disinfo agent that's being paid oogles of money to lie for the evil nuclear power plants. If so, I invite you all to tell that to his face here or just PM his profile on the BAUT forum.

777 geek is the author.

[Professor Yaffle]

[Please remember I don't consider myself to be at all knowledgable about this area, so please don't feel the need to shoot me down in flames if I say something stupid. Most of what I say will just be stream of consciousness stuff in order for me to work out exactly what my objections are and if the are valid, so that I can try a more informed opinion on for size.]

I agree that a large part of the opposition is based more on perception than actual risk. But before Chernobyl pretty much every proponent of nuclear power I spoke to said that no accident could happen, it was entirely safe etc. And if nuclear power becomes the main source of our power worldwide, what's to stop some nuclear power stations becoming equally lax in safety protocols etc? Or are only countries we* deem to be responsible enough, to be allowed to build them?

*Whoever we might be

[Lonewulf]

Well, if you're going to talk about Chernobyl, maybe it would be best if you actually read what went wrong, first.

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/acc/chernobyl.html

As for countries "we" deem to be safe or not, I think that you're overestimating our power to tell every other country what to do and what not to do. Quite frankly, many countries are building nuclear power plants whether we like it or not.

The major developed countries, the U.S. and the European Union, have the biggest energy needs, I think, outside of China. And China, we can't touch. If China decides to build nuclear power plants, then we're SOL if we want them not to.

As for countries like Africa, I'm not sure about. I'd have to give some thought to that one. I honestly think that we should offer nuclear engineers from other countries to help them set up any nuclear power plants, and use foreign scientists to know how to run them. Africa could definitely use the energy, if certain areas ever plan to pull themselves up into a post-developed country. Although that's definitely a political hotspot, so any venture there will be perilous.

however, in the meantime, we can build nuclear power plants in the countries that have the biggest requirement for them, are able to actually afford them, and can be "trusted" to have them, etc.

This would have a side effect: We would use up less fossil fuels, making what we have in fossil fuels last even longer than before.

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm not suggesting the the same thing might go wrong elsewhere, but that something else unforseen (as it seems Chernobyl was at the time) could happen. But I will read it all the same, thanks.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

I'm not suggesting the the same thing might go wrong elsewhere, but that something else unforseen (as it seems Chernobyl was at the time) could happen. But I will read it all the same, thanks.

Well, ****, "unforeseen" things could happen with fossil fuel power plants. It could happen with solar panels. It could happen with wind mills. If you want to talk about the "unforeseen", then I can't touch you. I can't say that Hazard X that we don't know about won't spontaneously pop out of nowhere and bite us in the butt. But you'd be much better talking about the various chemical factories that produce and store hazardous waste that could wipe out an entire city block if they're destroyed.

It seems like Nuclear Energy gets the special treatment in the safety concerns category in the opposite way Religion gets the special treatment in the philosophy category.

[mhaze]

South Africa has had two nuclear reactors operating since 1984.

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, but I'm thinking places like North Africa.

[pvt1863]

Chernobyl was not unforeseen. The United States and most other non-Soviet nuclear nations were well aware of the dangers inherent in many of the design features in that design. The NRC had long prohibited any design that used graphite, had a positive moderator temperature coefficient, had no containment, or lacked an immediate SCRAM feature. They also never would have licensed a plant or allowed one to continue operating with wandering criticality problems, nor would they have permitted the bypassing of safety features or the operation of hazardous experiments on site. Most of these decisions were made two decades in advance of the accident, and American engineers who knew about these features were not quiet about the problems in Soviet designs (the only reason concern was not widespread was because the Soviets were secretive about their designs). Based on what I have heard from my professors and some of my older coworkers, the question about an accident at a Soviet reactor was not "if," but rather "when" and "how bad." The ones who did not know enough about Soviet reactors ahead of time to be concerned were floored when they found out about the design. My graduate advisor remembered learning about the Chernobyl accident at a seminar shortly after the accident. He said that he and every other engineers who found out about the design there could not believe that the Soviets would build something so obviously dangerous.

The problem is that people tend to lump all nuclear together. "Nuclear" is not automatically or always safe. Like all technologies, there are safe ways to run it, and there are unsafe ways to run it. When people say nuclear is safe, they are usually implying that western designs are safe, not that all designs are safe. American reactors, by contrast to Soviet ones, have a safety record that is the envy of other industries.

You can't judge technology by simply saying "what if" without any rational basis for the question. Using the accident at Chernobyl to frame such a question for a western nuclear plant where such an accident is physically impossible is a good example of letting fear cloud rational judgment.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm afraid I have not read the thread as a whole, and I apologise if I am repeating things already said.

The nuclear lobby has a history of bald-faced lying, and independent examinations of the viability of nuclear power agree that it's not the technology we should be pursuing. It's not particularly "clean" in terms of net greenhouse gas emissions, because you have to mine and transport and refine huge amounts of ore, and because the high-grade ore is going to run out in fifty years or so at the current rate. If we build more reactors we'll just run out of high-grade ore faster, and mining low-grade ore for nuclear power plants produces more net greenhouse gas than the equivalent gas power plant does per unit energy.

It would also take ten to twenty years to get reactors on-line, and we can get renewable sources ready much faster. So solar, geothermal, wave, wind and so on will be solving problems in the real world before nuclear can get its socks on. That's why there has been only one nuclear plant I know of commissioned this century, in Finland, while wind and solar power systems are growing in number and net production by leaps and bounds. [Edit: I checked that claim, and I was actually wrong. It turns out Finland is the only European country to have commissioned a new nuke plant lately, but non-European nations have of course been at it too. Apologies for passing on a mis-remembered factoid].

It's also a bit cheeky to dismiss the waste problem and the proliferation problem as some of the people quoted in this thread have done. Nuclear waste does decay rapidly at first, but it's still going to be a danger for tens of thousands of years and it's a bit irresponsible to manufacture it when that's much longer than the likely lifespan of existing nations. We also don't particularly need more nations with nuclear weapons, let alone terrorist groups with nuclear weapons. (I consider the terrorist nuke scenario fairly far-fetched, but you can't make a nuke out of solar panels).

Lastly, I think a few people have an irrational reaction to the idea that they should cut down their energy use. It's just common sense that if we want to improve our lifestyle, we can either make more useable energy, or we can use the energy we have more efficiently. Increasing energy efficiency is just as good as building more power stations. We don't all have to go live in sackcloth in candle-lit communes, we just need to figure out more energy-efficient ways of heating our hot water, transporting people from point A to point B and so forth. If we can find ways of using energy more efficiently there's no reason we can't enjoy our current quality of life by using 20% less energy.

[luddite]

Quote:

Well, ****, "unforeseen" things could happen with fossil fuel power plants. It could happen with solar panels. It could happen with wind mills. If you want to talk about the "unforeseen", then I can't touch you. I can't say that Hazard X that we don't know about won't spontaneously pop out of nowhere and bite us in the butt. But you'd be much better talking about the various chemical factories that produce and store hazardous waste that could wipe out an entire city block if they're destroyed.

Unforeseen accidents with a coal plant just can't cause the sort of problems an unforeseen nuclear accident can cause. You can blow up a coal plant and you'll probably reduce the toxins released overall while the coal plant is not running. My mom is Ukrainian, and we have many acquaintances near Chernobyl. Their kids are still getting cancers and reproductive dysfunctions today.

People who work at nuclear plants get careless. I have a friend whose husband works at the Bruce reactor, and they live in an area where 80% of the families have a member working in the industry. Power workers have tags which indicate the level of radiation they've been exposed to. There is a black market in these tags so that workers can keep going to work even after they've passed the "safe" zone. Another friend, whose husband worked for years in the industry, spoke about an accident that required cleaning. The public was told it was perfectly safe and the incident was never exposed, but the workers who were sent in got 6 hour shifts followed by 2 years paid leave on condition they never exposed it. I know a nuclear engineer from India, who came to Canada confident that Canadian reactors would operate with much higher safety standards than the Indian ones, which were frightening. To his horror, he found the same flaws in the Canadian system.

I think it's really optimistic to say "it can't happen". I won't deny that Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen but I'm not confident that there aren't others, and I'm really not sure that a meltdown couldn't happen even with a much safer design. As I mentioned before, during the big blackout, only two of Ontario's reactors shut down properly.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by luddite

Unforeseen accidents with a coal plant just can't cause the sort of problems an unforeseen nuclear accident can cause. You can blow up a coal plant and you'll probably reduce the toxins released overall while the coal plant is not running. My mom is Ukrainian, and we have many acquaintances near Chernobyl. Their kids are still getting cancers and reproductive dysfunctions today.

It must be nice when you comment out of ignorance. At least, it must be... ignorance is bliss or somesuch. Must be blissful when you really think that nuclear power plants today are even somewhat equivalent to Chernobyl.

Quote:

I think it's really optimistic to say "it can't happen".

I am willing to say that the chances of an accident is so low as to be perfectly acceptable.

Quote:

I won't deny that Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen but I'm not confident that there aren't others, and I'm really not sure that a meltdown couldn't happen even with a much safer design. As I mentioned before, during the big blackout, only two of Ontario's reactors shut down properly.

A melt down is possible, but unlikely. But even a melt down is not equivalent to what happened at Chernobyl. A "melt down" has to do with a lack of coolant and material melting through the plant and into the earth. It's not the equivalent to a huge explosion.

Sure, something to be worried about, but not something to equate to Chernobyl at all.

[luddite]

Quote:

Not according to this chart: goldpactpower.com/chart.jpg

It seems that nuclear is on the range of coal in costs, and "green" solutions are far more costly.

The costs quoted do not include decommissioning costs, which are very high. They do not include the costs of containment, storage and protection for centuries. And nuclear plants are all uninsured, whereas all other types of generation include insurance in the costs listed. Then there are the corresponding health and environmental costs of normal operations, which would probably dramatically increase the costs of coal and somewhat increase the costs of nuclear.

Here's a link to a view that nuclear is pretty expensive.
energyprobe.org/energyprobe/images/NuclearCost/NuclearCost_files/v3_document.htm

In response to the Ontario Power Authority's proposal to rebuild Ontario's nuclear fleet, the Pembina Institute commissioned a study from the same economists that assessed the government plan with the same proposed costs for various power sources, but eliminated the plan for nuclear in favour of diverse renewable sources. They came to the conclusion that even excluding the incidental costs of nuclear, investments in conservation and renewables come up cheaper and more greenhouse gas emissions are prevented.
pembina.org/pub/1509

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Freedom for Fission

t is a pleasant suggestion and as such is great for use in the sound-bite media. It only works if one accepts an underlying straw man that the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, there is no real reason to not expect that we will see increasing use of nuclear and renewable electricity together in the future. Both the World Nuclear Association and the British Wind Energy Association have said as much.

It is also important to recognise the reality that popular renewables such as wind and solar are not sufficiently developed to contribute as large a fraction as nuclear is capable of doing for short to medium term. According to the recent IEA report, Key World Energy Statistics 2006 (2MB pdf), nuclear energy accounts for 6.5% of supply worldwide. Conversely, it lists a category labelled "other" which accounts for a mere 0.4%. This other not only includes solar and wind, but also geothermal as well. To even begin to match the nuclear contribution, would require a 15 fold expansion, even ignoring the fact that geothermal likely accounts for a significant fraction of that 0.4%. Clearly, there is a long way to go before these renewables can substitute significantly for either nuclear or fossil fuels.

If the argument is followed to its logical conclusion, or at least the conclusion implied by many of its proponents, no further nuclear development will be allowed on the basis that this "other" category is the preferred choice.

However, this means that the nuclear sector will be allowed to decay and before renewables can start substituting for fossil fuels, they must first replace nuclear. Even if they did so, several decades-worth of effort will have done nothing to achieve the original objective. Moreover, the importance of nuclear power presently means that it is more likely that renewables will not succeed in filling the void a nuclear phase-out will leave, and the end result will be an increase in the use of fossil fuels, proportionally as well as in real terms.

As far as energy efficiency is concerned, it is a form of energy as much as dieting of agriculture. While it is possible to mitigate the growth in energy consumption through energy efficiency methods, it still leaves the issue of deciding the mix of sources to supply the energy we do consume. If it is argued that energy efficiency can reduce consumption in real terms leading to an elimination of the need for nuclear (and the IEA forecasts go against this), then it could be equally argued that if the nuclear sector was maintained or expanded, the energy savings could be transferred to reduced dependence on fossil fuels, which is, after all, the objective.

Considered realistically, ruling out nuclear because renewables and energy efficiency are preferred, will in reality be counterproductive to substituting for fossil fuels. The concept is driven more by wishful thinking. It is a slogan, not a coherent energy policy.

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/...ternative.html

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/nppdf/free/2006/Key2006.pdf

[luddite]

Quote:

It must be nice when you comment out of ignorance. At least, it must be... ignorance is bliss or somesuch. Must be blissful when you really think that nuclear power plants today are even somewhat equivalent to Chernobyl.

First of all, I explicitly didn't equate all current power plants to Chernobyl. I accepted that Chernobyl was particularly problematic. But saying that Chernobyl was more likely to have an accident than another reactor doesn't change the fact that Chernobyl demonstrates what sorts of things can happen when an accident occurs. My point is that we can't get those kinds of results from an "accident" with a solar installation.

I did, however, leave open the question that unusual as it was, Chernobyl might not be entirely unique. Can you say with complete confidence that every single reactor in the world is safe? And can you say with equal confidence that a nuclear renaissance will retain the same safety throughout?

[luddite]

Quote:

It is also important to recognise the reality that popular renewables such as wind and solar are not sufficiently developed to contribute as large a fraction as nuclear is capable of doing for short to medium term.

Because nuclear takes 10-20 years for a buildout, I would argue that it is incapable of delivering any power at all in the short to medium term.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by luddite

First of all, I explicitly didn't equate all current power plants to Chernobyl. I accepted that Chernobyl was particularly problematic. But saying that Chernobyl was more likely to have an accident than another reactor doesn't change the fact that Chernobyl demonstrates what sorts of things can happen when an accident occurs.

An accident with a powerplant of that design, yes. We don't make power plants with that design.

An accident with the procedures that were done, yes. We have different procedures now.

Quote:

My point is that we can't get those kinds of results from an "accident" with a solar installation.

The creation of solar panels involves some pretty toxic chemicals. I'm pretty sure releasing those on a populace would be harmful.

Also, coal is even more toxic. You have an accident with coal, or with certain chemical plants, and you have an issue. Unless you're saying that solar power somehow has the ability to entirely replace all of coal?

Quote:

I did, however, leave open the question that unusual as it was, Chernobyl might not be entirely unique. Can you say with complete confidence that every single reactor in the world is safe?

I can say that the margins of safety are far higher than that of Chernobyl. Yes.

I can also say with near-certainty that if there is an accident with a nuclear power plant, it's very very very highly unlikely to be quite as explosive as Chernobyl is. Of course, if you can give me a single accident or evidence of one with a nuclear power plant on that scale, I might change my mind.

Quote:

And can you say with equal confidence that a nuclear renaissance will retain the same safety throughout?

I can say that safety procedures are fairly routine, yes.

Now, let me ask you a question:

Are fossil fuel-powered power plants the same as they were 100 years ago?

Are the methods of digging up fossil fuel the same as it was 100 years ago?

Have we gotten better at processing fossil fuel?

Has processing fossil fuel gotten safer?

If your answer is "no" to any of the above, please go into details.

[luddite]

Quote:

The creation of solar panels involves some pretty toxic chemicals. I'm pretty sure releasing those on a populace would be harmful.

Well, if you're going to go into manufacture, then mining uranium is fair game. The toxic tailings routinely left behind are far more hazardous than anything involved in refining sand.

[Lonewulf]

You mean this waste?

Quote:

For an idea of what this means, consider the American nuclear power output for 2005, which amounted to around 90 GW.yr. The volume of high level waste as spent fuel produced is therefore around 90m³. This means that almost a decades worth of high level waste from the entire American civil reactor fleet could fit into a single Boeing 777 freighter such as one based on the medium capacity aircraft shown in figure 1 (getting the aircraft airborne with that load is another matter however). So Air France's order for 5 Boeing 777Fs is sufficient to store the spent fuel produced by the US reactor fleet over its entire lifetime.

EDIT: Ah, no you didn't.

Oh well. Now you just have to demonstrate that solar energy can catch up with and replace nuclear energy easily or inexpensively. You up to it?

[luddite]

Quote:

Also, coal is even more toxic. You have an accident with coal, or with certain chemical plants, and you have an issue. Unless you're saying that solar power somehow has the ability to entirely replace all of coal?

Interesting question. I think wind is a lot more promising for baseload power than solar. I don't think any one thing is going to be the silver bullet. But coal is toxic due to constant exposure. Kids get asthma because of nearby coal plants over decades. Explode a coal plant and you'll get the powder from the coal that was in the plant at the time. It's probably a net benefit to the local asthmatic as it takes a couple of years to rebuild the plant during which time the air is clearer. Explode a nuclear plant and you release toxins that were designed to be contained because they are far too dangerous to be released. It's a different sort of thing.

You can eat coal, even that with a high sulfur content. I wouldn't recommend ingesting depleted uranium.

Coal is more dangerous than nuclear when things are running as they're intended. I didn't think I was saying anything controversial when I suggested that when things don't go as intended, the potential problems from nuclear are higher. I think the question is about the probability that problems can occur.

[robinson]

Solar energy has already replaced nuclear energy in many areas. While Nuclear power plants are being cried over, solar power just keeps increasing in use.

I think the issue with some people is they still think solar is limited to solar panels creating electricity. The most costly method of using solar power.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by robinson

Solar energy has already replaced nuclear energy in many areas. While Nuclear power plants are being cried over, solar power just keeps increasing in use.

Evidence?

Seriously, I want some serious evidence that any country is using only 100% solar panels and have entirely replaced fossil fuels and nuclear energy. If you can, I'd eat my hat and praise solar.

Especially if you could demonstrate that wind, solar, and geothermal could go from 0.4% of the world's energy supply to even some number like 20% to 30%...

...But as long as it can't replace it 100%, there's still a place for nuclear energy, I'm sorry to say. Sorry, but that's how it is.

[luddite]

Quote:

Now, let me ask you a question:

Are fossil fuel-powered power plants the same as they were 100 years ago?

Are the methods of digging up fossil fuel the same as it was 100 years ago?

Have we gotten better at processing fossil fuel?

Has processing fossil fuel gotten safer?

If your answer is "no" to any of the above, please go into details.

I'm not sure where this is going, and I'm no expert, but I'll try to answer.

In Ontario, the main difference between today's coal plants and those of the last century is that they've recently had scrubbers installed. That and they're a lot bigger. I would say that on the whole, the technology is remarkably similar. So if I have to answer Yes or No about whether fossil fuel powered plants are the same, I'd have to say Yes.

The methods of digging up fossil fuels have changed somewhat, yes. Certainly fewer coal miners die underground, though exceptions occur. On the other hand we decapitate mountains and expose the surrounding populations to environmental toxins. While the methods of extracting oil, natural gas and coal are all more efficient, these gains are more than offset by the declines in the quality of the resources available. Advanced oil recovery hastens extraction, but is now thought to actually decrease the proportion of resource ultimately extractable. So there are some changes to a basic process. In some ways they can be viewed as progress, in other ways not.

Have we gotten better at processing fossil fuel. Yes. Again the gains in efficiency of processing are more than offset by the reductions in resource quality. It takes more energy to recover the average barrel of oil now than it did 50 years ago.

Has processing fuel gotten safer? Yes.