Should nuclear energy be phased out?

[WarrenPlatts]

The last thread on this topic was shut down because it was unfair because there weren't enough choices, and there was too much editorializing in the OP. So we'll keep it simple this time.

Should nuclear energy be phased out?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe . . .
4. Don't know
5. Couldn't care less

 

[alexandra]

I definitely think nuclear energy should be phased out because it can't be anything but a temporary solution. Why go the temporary route when it's going to be such a huge investment of resources (both intellectual and financial) and has a definite shelf-life when one can be investing in a variety of sustainable long-term solutions instead?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Lest anyone think it is impossible to phase out nuclear energy, keep in mind that Denmark has already done it. The Danes legally banned the construction of new nuclear power plants 1988, and their country seems to be getting along mostly OK.

The opposition to nuclear power is more than a grassroots national feeling. It's codified. In 1988, two years after the Chernobyl nuclear accident, Denmark's parliament passed a law forbidding construction of nuclear plants. This is understandable. To this day, the effects of the radioactivity from Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union, linger throughout Denmark.

Wind technology has filled the void.

Although the encouragement of wind energy wasn't written into the 1988 law, wind energy subsequently came of age. A large, lucrative industry grew up, making Denmark the leader in wind-energy technology. Now, this fourth-generation of clean-energy technology has spread globally.

article here

 

[Azael]

Lest anyone think it is impossible to phase out nuclear energy, keep in mind that Denmark has already done it. The Danes legally banned the construction of new nuclear power plants 1988, and their country seems to be getting along mostly OK.


article here

Unfortunaly sweden has also passed folish laws like that and added that its illegal to do a cost comparions betwen nuclear power and other options. I think its also illegal to even conduct research on new reactor designs. Not even fusion research is allowed here because of those laws:grumpy:

IMO the most stupid descision ever made in sweden. Sweden gets roughly 50% of power from hydroelectricity and the rest from nuclear power. I would like it to stay that way.

Im strictly against phasing out nuclear power and very much want to se more nuclear power plants.
Denmark is ideal in location for wind power. Sweden doesn't have that luxury so we will be forced to import dirty power from germany.

http://www.ecolo.org/

 

[Cyrus]

Because Denmark uses soo much power that they NEED so many nuclear power plants...yea right. Denmarks power consumption is insignificant compared to the united states. All these comparisons are really stupid, quite frankly.

I definitely think nuclear energy should be phased out because it can't be anything but a temporary solution. Why go the temporary route when it's going to be such a huge investment of resources (both intellectual and financial) and has a definite shelf-life when one can be investing in a variety of sustainable long-term solutions instead?

Then I Strongly suggest you propose a viable alternative.

 

[Orefa]

Yes in the grand scheme of things. As alexandra pointed out the benefits are temporary and the drawbacks are practically permanent so it's a bad tradeoff. But not today, not just yet. Such a transition is a painful one. And Azael still needs a job. I think we should first learn not to make so many babies that need to be kept warm and strive for a stable population. When you don't need to account for uncontrollable human growth, all resources become much easier to manage, electrical power included. I will now go hide in my cave to avoid tomatoes thrown by all the economists out there (who also need to grow them in exponential numbers to quell the growing number of heretic idealists like me).

 

[WarrenPlatts]

In Denmark, they get by on 6,808 kWh per person per year, whereas in the U.S., the rate is 12,934 kWh per person per year (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?Country=DK&IndicatorID=46#rowDK ), yet the per capita GDP of Denmark ($30,940--ranked 5th in the world) is comparable to the U.S. ($35,750--ranked 4th in the world, after Luxembourg, Norway, and Ireland). This suggests one viable alternative to nuclear electricity in the United States: conservation. If America could cut back electricity consumption through increased efficiency by a mere 17%, that would cover the electricity lost by closing down all nuclear power plants.

Yes in the grand scheme of things. As alexandra pointed out the benefits are temporary and the drawbacks are practically permanent so it's a bad tradeoff. But not today, not just yet. Such a transition is a painful one.

We'll phase out nuclear energy gradually. We keep the NPPs we've got for now until their useful lifespan expires, and just not build any new ones.

 

[motai]

I definitely think nuclear energy should be phased out because it can't be anything but a temporary solution. Why go the temporary route when it's going to be such a huge investment of resources (both intellectual and financial) and has a definite shelf-life when one can be investing in a variety of sustainable long-term solutions instead?

Once the investment is made, the cost of production of energy will pay itself off over time. Looking at any power company's daily usage, the nuclear plants are running as long as possible (it would be unproductive not to), and they would only use coal/gas during peak hours. Once the plant is finally paid off, the cost of energy per kilowatthour of nuclear energy is lower than say coal or natural gas.

In 1999, production costs (outlays for fuel and operations and maintenance) at nuclear power plants averaged 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), lower than coal at 2.07 cents/kwh and still far lower than oil-fired plants at 3.18 cents/kwh and natural gas plants at 3.52 cents/kwh.

...

The 103 reactors operating in 31 states produced 571.2 billion kilowatt-hours through September 2000, compared to 543.5 billion kwh through September 1999, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. For the full year, the nuclear energy industry in 1999 generated an all-time high of 728 billion kwh, providing 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs. Industry estimates show an expected four percent increase over that record production level for 2000.

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=304

Nuclear energy is a long term solution, and while the supply of uranium is a finite resource (breeder reactors can help alleviate this), it is certainly more of an alternative to the predominantly natural gas based infrastructure that we have now.

Currently ~20% of US energy comes from nuclear plants. If we were to phase out this form of energy, we would have to burn more coal and oil to offset the difference (extrapolating from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/10atab.html the roughly 800 billion KWH needed that nuclear power already provides). That and energy demand will most likely grow in the future.

 

[russ_watters]

I definitely think nuclear energy should be phased out because it can't be anything but a temporary solution.

What do you mean by "temporary"? How many years do you think we can go before running out of nuclear fuel?

I voted "no" because of nuclear power's track record and cost: it is safe, clean, inexpensive (relative to "alternative" energy sources), and plentiful.

 

[russ_watters]

Lest anyone think it is impossible to phase out nuclear energy, keep in mind that Denmark has already done it. The Danes legally banned the construction of new nuclear power plants 1988, and their country seems to be getting along mostly OK.

Of course it is possible, but your original question is whether or not we should.

Denmark currently gets 19% of its power from wind and all the rest from fossil fuel. Do you really consider that to be a good tradeoff?

http://www.cslforum.org/denmark.htm

 

[Art]

Why not develop 'clean coal' power plants. The US and most other industrialised nations have massive amounts of coal available to them. Enough to last hundreds of years.

The cost of a clean coal power plant is around 25% dearer than a conventional one and the additional cost for sequestering the 750 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted each year is estimated to be around $31 million p/a.

This sounds a lot cheaper and safer than adding new nuclear power plants especially as 50% of the US electricity supply is already being produced in coal fired power plants and so the infrastructure is already in place.

 

[Cyrus]

What do you mean by "temporary"? How many years do you think we can go before running out of nuclear fuel?

There was a NOAA program a while back, its not that much. It said something to the effect that if we used all the nuclear power plants around the world, it would only last ~70? years. It would run out quite fast.

As for coal, its not enough to last hundreds of years, at most, ONE hundred years.

 

[SOS2008]

Yes in the grand scheme of things. As alexandra pointed out the benefits are temporary and the drawbacks are practically permanent so it's a bad tradeoff. But not today, not just yet. Such a transition is a painful one. And Azael still needs a job. I think we should first learn not to make so many babies that need to be kept warm and strive for a stable population. When you don't need to account for uncontrollable human growth, all resources become much easier to manage, electrical power included. I will now go hide in my cave to avoid tomatoes thrown by all the economists out there (who also need to grow them in exponential numbers to quell the growing number of heretic idealists like me).

I brought up the matter of population control before as well. It definitely should be a part of any future planning of anything. Thanks to conservative movements, we have to do battle over something as basic as allowing distribution of condoms before we can even get around to the discussion of energy sources.

In regard to energy sources, I feel many things have been and continue to be neglected, such as providing government incentives for automakers, home builders, and of course corporations of every kind. There are already many things that could be implemented for better energy efficiency, but it’s not being done. The government must be behind it. And as I’ve said before, here in the U.S. we should have had a NASA style program for alternative energy years ago. Why are we still waiting? Go to the thread about Censorship at NASA, NOAA, etc. and see what our government has been about. What are the American people about? They are either apathetic or obsessed with distribution of condoms.

So what do we do now? Unfortunately we find ourselves in a position of little choice. We will have to go on using what ever is realistically at our disposal—though some may be the lesser of evils, such as the clean coal Art suggested.

In another forum the topic of methane arose. It is becoming a great energy source in China, and I recently saw a program about a recycling plant here in the U.S. that is powered with methane from the nearby landfill. This would also help reduce a greenhouse gas, no? I say we should all install stoves with pipes to the sewer.

 

[Cyrus]

In regard to energy sources, I feel many things have been and continue to be neglected, such as providing government incentives for automakers, home builders, and of course corporations of every kind.

Yes and no. While its true that the American auto makers clearly don’t give a damn about fuel consumption, look at all the SUV's people drive, (and don’t get me started on that I can't stand SUV drivers), allot of factories these days are much more environmentally friendly. i.e., paper mills and logging companies will use the saw dust and burn it to power the machines in the factory, instead of just throwing it away. *Some* factories have gotten allot better in this sense, although some have not. (But overall compared to 1970 it is a lot better)

Things like wind power, solar energy, cleaner coals, are all great, and should be built and used. But an informed person would know that these will in no way, I repeat, no way replace nuclear or fossil fuels. We can do allot to alleviate the usage of resources, as we are the most wasteful nation on the planet. Not wasteful in the effect of careless, but wasteful in terms of everything we make is disposable. We don’t build anything to last anymore. This is why we waste so much. Everything is one time use, and comes in excessive packaging that wastes allot of material.

 

[SOS2008]

...a llot of factories these days are much more environmentally friendly. i.e., paper mills and logging companies will use the saw dust and burn it to power the machines in the factory, instead of just throwing it away. *Some* factories have gotten allot better in this sense, although some have not. (But overall compared to 1970 it is a lot better)

Things like wind power, solar energy, cleaner coals, are all great, and should be built and used. But an informed person would know that these will in no way, I repeat, no way replace nuclear or fossil fuels. We can do allot to alleviate the usage of resources, as we are the most wasteful nation on the planet. Not wasteful in the effect of careless, but wasteful in terms of everything we make is disposable. We don’t build anything to last anymore. This is why we waste so much. Everything is one time use, and comes in excessive packaging that wastes allot of material.

I'm not talking about pollutants; I'm talking about energy use and efficiency. And as I said, because of our neglect, we now have no choice but to use energy sources at our disposal (which unfortunately includes nuclear). I completely agree about wastefulness, and packaging gets back to corporations, not just individuals.

 

[Art]

There was a NOAA program a while back, its not that much. It said something to the effect that if we used all the nuclear power plants around the world, it would only last ~70? years. It would run out quite fast.

As for coal, its not enough to last hundreds of years, at most, ONE hundred years.

According to this article there's enough coal left to last 300 years. By that time I imagine we will have developed completely new energy sources. http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal1.asp Also some rough studies done in the 90s found there were already sufficient known geological areas identified, suitable for storing 50,000 billion tonnes of CO2 - more than will be produced in the next several hundred years.

The waste CO2 is also already being used in Canada and other places to extend the life of otherwise dead oilfields by pumping it down under pressure to force more oil out.

So although coal is a fossil fuel and fossil fuels have a bad name it seems it doesn't have to be that way. Coal burning power plants can have zero harmful emmisions, as demonstrated by some of the proto type plants already built.

 

[Azael]

I brought up the matter of population control before as well. It definitely should be a part of any future planning of anything. Thanks to conservative movements, we have to do battle over something as basic as allowing distribution of condoms before we can even get around to the discussion of energy sources.

Trying to controll the population of the rich countries would be totaly wasted effort since many of those countries already have aging and diminishing populations. Only imigration keeps the numbers up.

In china, india, middle east population controll would help to prevent a explosion in power usage. But in the western world I se no need for it at all, it would probably hurt our societs a lot to try and keep population growth down.

Goverments need to step in and restrict energy consumption if anything is to be done.
But if the people have a chooise betwen giving up some quality of life or wanting more nuclear power plants no one would vote no to nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldnt.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, nuclear power was not out of our neglect. It really was thought at one point that ALL our power would be nuclear, and we would use NO fossil fuels.

With the industrial revolution, we really never had any choice on our use for fossil fuels for the last 200 years. Japan is a country to take notice at. They have more than doubled in terms of technology in the last 30 years, but reamain nearly the same in total energy consumption. We, however, have doubled in energy use for the same amount of technological change.

 

[Cyrus]

Trying to controll the population of the rich countries would be totaly wasted effort since many of those countries already have aging and diminishing populations. Only imigration keeps the numbers up.

In china, india, middle east population controll would help to prevent a explosion in power usage. But in the western world I se no need for it at all, it would probably hurt our societs a lot to try and keep population growth down.

Yes, that is very true, as the US won't have a significant population as to China or India. Population control in those countries will have greater effect. Population rates in already industrialized countries are, as you said, on the decline. However, that does not change the fact that the US uses more power than most other nations COMBINED, despite our low population. We need to diversify our power consumption, and use renewable energy sources in as many areas as possible.

 

[Azael]

Yes, that is very true, as the US won't have a significant population as to China or India. Population control in those countries will have greater effect. Population rates in already industrialized countries are, as you said, on the decline. However, that does not change the fact that the US uses more power than most other nations COMBINED, despite our low population. We need to diversify our power consumption, and use renewable energy sources in as many areas as possible.

yes I totaly agree that americans needs to stop beeing wastefull. Or well the same goes for all rich countries but not to the same extent.

But seriously. All the money put on alternative energy would probably yieald 10 times as much energy if invested in nuclear power?? This is just a guess from my side though since I have no figures to go on. But nuclear power is a reliable, tested and clean power source. We know how to build and manage them. Renewables on the other hand are not reliable as of yet. I would hate to se countries put all eggs in the renewable basket.

 

[Cyrus]

You would get more energy from nuclear power plants if that money went to nuclear and not alternative. The problem is there is not a lot of nuclear material to go crazy and built one reactor after another. There is only a couple decades of nuclear power available. The problem with nuclear power is the waste that will stay around for 2000 years, and no place to put it. Even china is big on using wind power. The dutch have used wind power for about 100 years now. It is quit reliable, just not as effecient for all areas.

 

[Azael]

Isnt there huge ammounts of uranium that can be extracted from sea water??

http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/ff/ff43/topics.html

How acurate is this claim from this page
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

How much uranium is there in seawater?
Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium. All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.

http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278

 

[Orefa]

The problem with nuclear power is the waste that will stay around for 2000 years, and no place to put it.

And isn't this highly optimistic? The numbers I saw were billions, not thousands. As in a billion pounds of depleted uranium with a half life of four billion years. While I'm not sure of these particular figures I have a good hunch that thinking in terms of just a few thousand years trivializes the extent of the problem.

 

[Azael]

And isn't this highly optimistic? The numbers I saw were billions, not thousands. As in a billion pounds of depleted uranium with a half life of four billion years. While I'm not sure of these particular figures I have a good hunch that thinking in terms of just a few thousand years trivializes the extent of the problem.

Anything with a half life of four billion years can't be especialy dangerous Such a low decay rate must mean very very tiny radiation?

 

[Orefa]

Anything with a half life of four billion years can't be especialy dangerous Such a low decay rate must mean very very tiny radiation?

Good point. The waste is not pure uranium though but a mixture of various metals with various half-lives and I don't know for how long this mixture remains dangerous. Still, there is just so much of it!

 

[Orefa]

Question: isn't it possible to return to sender? Radioactive elements are mined, right? Can the process not be reversed to return spent materials exactly where they came from in the first place?

As for sea water as a source of uranium, if there is so much in the ocean already, can it be used and then returned depleted? Surely this was considered and rejected for many good reasons.

 

[Azael]

well the uranium you dig up isn't very radioactive. The waste is. So you can't just put it back there, it could leak into water supplies.

Maby transmutation will be the solution in the close future, someone here must know how rapdily that is developing.

 

[Orefa]

well the uranium you dig up isn't very radioactive. The waste is.

So the uranium is refined before use, which brings up another question. Since you need radioactivity to fuel a reactor, why discard radioactive waste instead of refining it again and re-using it? Wrong wavelength? Not technically feasible for other reasons?

I'm showing my ignorance.

 

[Cyrus]

Arg, then why are you even debating this topic.

So the uranium is refined before use, which brings up another question. Since you need radioactivity to fuel a reactor, why discard radioactive waste instead of refining it again and re-using it?

Huh? You don't NEED radioactivity to fuel a reactor, it is a byproduct.

Wrong wavelength? Not technically feasible for other reasons?

Huh?...

Please spend some time reading about what your debating.

 

[Azael]

So the uranium is refined before use, which brings up another question. Since you need radioactivity to fuel a reactor, why discard radioactive waste instead of refining it again and re-using it? Wrong wavelength? Not technically feasible for other reasons?

I'm showing my ignorance.

The fuel in nuclear power plants are not highely radioactive. I think you could use the regular fuel rod material as a bookend without any harm. The only requirement is that it can easily absorb a neutron so it becomes unstable and split.

Im going to have to pass on this because my knoweledge of nuclear physics is very VERY shallow.

But I am fairly certain that is how a breeder reactor works. It produces more fissile matter from the matter you put into it. So the original fuel is used 50 times as efficiently as in other types of reactors.

 

[Orefa]

Arg, then why are you even debating this topic.
[...]
Please spend some time reading about what your debating.

Your criticism is not really fair since this debate is not about how nuclear reactors work but on their impact. I freely admit my ignorance of what's actually going on inside the blasted things. This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor.

 

[Azael]

Your criticism is not really fair since this debate is not about how nuclear reactors work but on their impact. I freely admit my ignorance of what's actually going on inside the blasted things. This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor.

Remember that even if nuclear waste has to be handled for thousands of years its still not as bad as dangerous chemical waste that has to be handled indefenetly.

The dangers of nuclear power and nuclear waste seems WAY overblown to me. Why not just store the waste temporarly until we find a permanent solution. In a 100 years we will certanly know how to get rid of it. So why worry about 100 000 year storage areas now

 

[Cyrus]

Your criticism is not really fair since this debate is not about how nuclear reactors work but on their impact. I freely admit my ignorance of what's actually going on inside the blasted things. This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor.

Yes, if you don't know how they even work, I don't think you know about their impact. Do you think that smoke that comes out of the reactor cooling towers are pollution? My case in point. And you said billiions of years, which is wrong. Just read about in in wiki or somewhere, it will only take you a whole 30 mins at most.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The dangers of nuclear power and nuclear waste seems WAY overblown to me. Why not just store the waste temporarly until we find a permanent solution. In a 100 years we will certanly know how to get rid of it. So why worry about 100 000 year storage areas now.

There's a question of intergenerational ethics here. Is it really fair to ask our great-great grandchildren to deal with a mess that we created? By then, nuclear might seem as old-fashioned as paddle-wheeled steamships seem to us. Alternatively, if our best minds can't figure out a solution now, why think that they will be able to in 100 years? In another alternate future, something superbad could happen, like world war or a mass pandemic worse than the black plague, in which case, they may not have the economic wherewithal to deal with our waste.

The problem is building something that's going to last longer than the Egyptian pyramids, and more impervious to burglers. And where is the money going to come from? Are we setting aside a trust fund now to be used in 100 years to store nuclear waste using a method we hope they figure out because we're too stupid? If so, I haven't heard about it.

 

[Azael]

There's a question of intergenerational ethics here. Is it really fair to ask our great-great grandchildren to deal with a mess that we created? By then, nuclear might seem as old-fashioned as paddle-wheeled steamships seem to us. Alternatively, if our best minds can't figure out a solution now, why think that they will be able to in 100 years? In another alternate future, something superbad could happen, like world war or a mass pandemic worse than the black plague, in which case, they may not have the economic wherewithal to deal with our waste.

The problem is building something that's going to last longer than the Egyptian pyramids, and more impervious to burglers. And where is the money going to come from? Are we setting aside a trust fund now to be used in 100 years to store nuclear waste using a method we hope they figure out because we're too stupid? If so, I haven't heard about it.

as far as I can tell(Im not keeping updated on this) transmutation is very promising. Also new reactors that can run on the waste of other reactors and the waste of those reactors not beeing that long lived ect. There seems to be plenty of possible ways to get around the waste issue. hell if something like the esa phoenix(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Phoenix) gets working why not just put aside some of the power produces to shot it right into space. Or burry it **** deep underground or somewhere in the ocean where it can slowely dissipate into ocean water.

Il let someone like Russ that knows for sure what he's talking about answere how to deal with waste.

But as to the question why they would be able in a 100 years but not today. Il just say how much hasnt happened during the last 100 years??