News 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

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??

 

[Azael]

The most important question is what are you suggesting as a alternative to nuclear power to replace fossile fuel? Regular wind power surely can't fill the worlds energy needs. Solar power would need immense surfaces and would need to go down in price tenfold, hydropower puts huge areas underwater. Tidal power maby I don't know how good it is, but even that must have huge drawbacks on sea life.


Sounds a lot better to build now what is known to be safe and works good and start building alternatives when they become competitive.

 

[Cyrus]

Also new reactors that can run on the waste of other reactors and the waste of those reactors not beeing that long lived ect.

The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff.

gets working why not just put aside some of the power produces to shot it right into space.

Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft , you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth.

Or burry it **** deep underground or somewhere in the ocean where it can slowely dissipate into ocean water.

Because, again, it seeps into the waters all around the world, and kills everything that consumes it. Like getting into the water table.

 

[Azael]

The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff.

What are the waste from them? I had the picture that the waste that can't be reused is mostly of short half life, so while very dangerous it doesn't have to be stored for such a long time.

Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft , you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth. Sounds a lot better to build now what is known to be safe and works good and start building alternatives when they become competitive.

Killing everyone on Earth sounds very dramatic. It would probably be spread around so much that no one would notice one accident. I only mentioned it as a far fetched idea if they get something like the phoenix prototype to work.

Because, again, it seeps into the waters all around the world, and kills everything that consumes it. Like getting into the water table.

Either I am totaly ignorant or your seriously overestimating the dangers of radioactive waste.

What about this

http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/sea-based.htm

 

[Cyrus]

to be polite, I am not overestimating the dangers. Plutonium, for example, will sit there for about 25 thousand years. Thats the crap that comes out of breeder reactors.

 

[Azael]

Well that only means the other option is true lol :-)

Anyway Il withdraw from this discussion now since I have nothing more of value to add besides speculation.

 

[Cyrus]

It would not immediately kill everyone. But it would cause major reproductive problems and cancer that would eventually kill us all in a very unpleasant and painful way.

 

[Orefa]

Yes, if you don't know how they even work, I don't think you know about their impact.

Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion.

Do you think that smoke that comes out of the reactor cooling towers are pollution? My case in point.

No. And this thread was never based on this. You don't really have a "case in point".

And you said billiions of years, which is wrong.

And you mentionned 2000 years which is just as wrong. But on your part you did no't say half life so it's ok, and on my part I said I wasn't sure of my figures, so this is moot in both our cases.

 

[chroot]

My previous comments on the vastly overrated dangers of long half-life radioactive materials:

from https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=99215

I think you'll eventually learn the following: the Earth is an absolutely immensely large place. If you take a pound of plutonium-239 and distribute it evenly over the entire planet -- which is apparently your conception of the worst case -- each square meter receives 5.56470179 × 10^-22 kg of plutonium, or about 1400 atoms of plutonium.

1400 atoms of plutonium has a specific activity of 3.40828 x 10^-20 curies, or about 1.2610636 x 10^-09 decays per second. That's right, that's about one decay in 25 years.

You could go further and calculate the chances of those decay products actually hitting people -- most of them will go right into the Earth or right up into the atmosphere. Only a very very few will be emitted at the correct angle to strike a person. I could calculate this factor, but what's the point?

I'll let you extrapolate the figures for 100 pounds, or 10,000 pounds of plutonium released. Observe the trend:

It's utterly insignificant.

from https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=99149

By the way, your continued alarmism re: long half-life radioisotopes begs the comment:

Nearly all heavy metals have a biological half-life of less than six months. This means the half-life of the radioisotope is not a big deal, assuming that the people in the contaminated area are moved elsewhere so their consumption of the material stops.

Let's take an example: Cs-137, one of the most dangerous radioisotopes due to its chemical similarity to potassium.

1) The biological half-life of Cs-137 is about 115 days. (Source: CDC, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prussianblue.asp )

2) The radiological half-life of Cs-137 is 30.17 years. (Source: DOE)

3) The specific activity of Cs-137 is 86.4 curies/g, or 3.2 x 10¹² beta decays per second per gram. (Source: DOE)

Let's say a very unlucky person ingests an entire milligram of pure Cs-137. How many decays will his body experience in the time period until the concentration of Cs-137 is his body is 1% of the original dose?

This takes 6.64 biological half-lives, or about two years.

After two years, about 95% of the Cs-137 is still active.

The total dose received by the subject is 1.42429 x 10¹² decays over those two years.

If the radiological half-life for Cs-137 were instead 10,000 years, 330 times longer, the total dose would be 1.43842 x 1012 decays, or just about 1% more decays.

Long half-life radioactive materials are actually less dangerous than short half-life radioactive materials. Virtually no one seems to really understand this basic fact.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

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.

"Clean coal" is a good idea (existing plants should be retrofitted immediately), but it must be remembered that it isn't completely clean, just cleaner.

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.

I suspect that the program assumes that we'd continue using existing obsolete designs, wouldn't use reprocessing, and economics would not make other extraction methods economical. Take away those unrealistic (wrong) assumptions, and the numbers get a lot better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Fuel_resources

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

How acurate is this claim from this page?

The basic problem is that we don't know if it'll work (by that I mean the economics in addition to the engineering) until we do it. But that just puts us in the same place as the typical alternative energy sources.

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.

Well, IIRC, the design criteria for the "permanent" waste site is 100,000 years. But the thing about depleted uranium is that it's depleted. It is less radioactive than the day it was dug out of the ground - that's why it has such a long half-life. In any case, we'll go into that more later...

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.

Well, if you could pump the entire ocean through it to dilute it before returning it to the ocean, sure... Otherwise you will end up concentrating it somewhere.

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?

The waste can be reprocessed - it isn't reprocessed in the US for political reasons. But economics has a way of taking care of that sort of thing...

I'm showing my ignorance.

Not a problem: you are asking questions and showing a definite desire to learn.

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

Um - if it isn't radioactive before going into the reactor, how does it undergo fission?

No, nuclear fuel is dug out of the ground slightly radioactive, is enriched until it is somewhat more radioactive, and after it is used, it has different mixtures of radioactive elements. But both the DU waste from the ore and the waste from the reactor can be re-processed to get more use out of it.

On this subject, there is plenty of ignorance to go around.

This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor.

Well, there is considerable debate about that. In my personal opinion, the 100,000 year design criteria is absurd. The spent fuel has bee sitting in local storage for quite some time, safe, secure, and not hurting anyone. In 50 years, do you know what will have happened? Nothing. It'll still be sitting there safe, secure, and not hurting anyone. So why the requirement for 100,000 years? Nevermind the virtual impossibility of that design criteria (which is why so much money has been spent on the permanent storage idea with virtually nothing to show for it), why do we really need it?

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?

Ironic thing to say, considering the whole global-warming mess that we aren't really dealing with (to say nothing for problem such as the national debt...)... Frankly, I think a few dozen gymnasium-sized storage sits is not a bad thing to pass down if it means eliminating fossil fuel pollution.

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?

That's self-contradictory. In the first part you said that we're so smart we won't need nuclear power in the future and in the second that we're not smart enough to use nuclear power effectively. That also highlights the problem with making predictions about 100,000 year storage. What if we find another way in 50 years? Maybe we will and maybe we won't. Regardless of if either is correct, what we do know for sure right now is that our spent fuel is safe right now and global CO2 levels are rising right now. In 50 years (about as far in advance as we can really plan), we can end up with a waste disposal situation pretty much the same as we have now and no greenhouse gas problem. Seems good to me.

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.

Certainly - but if a pandemic kills off so many people that society collapses and we can't deal with our waste... are we going to care about 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.

Huh? I wouldn't recommend it, but the storage facility being planned likely will be built. With today's money. And since it will be required to be secure and not require maintenance, future money is not required.

as far as I can tell(Im not keeping updated on this) transmutation is very promising.

I don't know about transmutation per se (maybe...), but there are certainly reprocessing options.

The most important question is what are you suggesting as a alternative to nuclear power to replace fossile fuel?

Yes, the question requires an evaluation of the alternatives. Like I said, we can, of course, phase out nuclear power if we want to. Heck, the environmentalists were successful in getting nuclear power plant construction stopped after TMI - perhaps they will succeed in getting it phased-out (if we don't build any new plants, the old ones will need to be shut down eventually anyway). But at what cost? We've vastly increased fossil fuel energy production, and as a result, air pollution.

The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff.

Sure, but so what? Whether it's medium-nasty or REALLY nasty, if it's in a concrete building and not hurting anyone, what's the problem?

Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft , you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth.

Shooting it into space probably isn't going to happen for other reasons, but nuclear fuel has already been shot into space and it's already crashed back to earth, and if properly designed, the fuel is not released. Anyway, "spray[ing] nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill[ing] everyone on earth" is just not something that would be possible - even if we just shot a bunch of 55 gallon drums up there.

to be polite, I am not overestimating the dangers.

To be polite, yeah, you are. For example:

Plutonium, for example, will sit there for about 25 thousand years.

Saying how long something will sit there doesn't say anything at all about how dangerous it is. Throwing big numbers of years around is just a scare tactic (in fact - it's an ironically inverted scare tactic since the longer the half-life, the less radioactive the material).

[some repetition of what Warren said, but I replied to posts in order. Besides, sometimes repetition helps]

 

[russ_watters]

Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion.

Agreed - Cryus, lay off Azael, and Azael, don't stop trying to learn just because someone talks down to you.

 

[chroot]

Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion.

Actually, I have to side with cyrusabdollahi on this one (can you believe it?). You do need to be a surgeon to competently debate the merits of different surgical abortion techniques.

In this case, if you don't know the physics of how reactors work, or the physics of how their waste interacts with biological systems, you are essentially unequipped to participate competently in a debate about how such wastes should be dealt with, or what the dangers really are.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

<Hugs Azael> Aw shucks, I love you guyz.

Edit: <Hugs chroot> I love you too, thanks for the information.

Thanks for the info too Russ.

I wouldn't trust those things to hold in the material that long that safe though. Things have a way of finding failure that you did not expect.

In this case, if you don't know the physics of how reactors work, or the physics of how their waste interacts with biological systems, you are essentially unequipped to participate competently in a debate about how such wastes should be dealt with, or what the dangers really are.

Apparently myself included now. You guys owned me

 

[russ_watters]

More on this:

Anyway, "spray[ing] nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill[ing] everyone on earth" is just not something that would be possible - even if we just shot a bunch of 55 gallon drums up there.

The worst space-nuclear incident was Cosmos 954, which carried an actual reactor and was not designed to survive re-entry.

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/dangerous_reentries_000602.html

On January 24, 1978, Cosmos 954 reentered over Canada, with debris hitting the ground in frozen and scarcely populated areas in Canadian Arctic. The U.S. team, which many now believe was associated with the CIA, arrived in Canada to assist in the search. The day after the crash, they started overflights of the area trying to detect the radiation from the spacecraft 's remnants.

Before they picked up any indications, two people from a six-member group of adventurers returning to their camp found a crater with burned metal pieces in the ice. One of the unsuspecting men touched a strange object with his gloved hand. When a pair finally got to the camp ready to tell the rest of the group about their strange finding, they were told the news about the spacecraft crash. The authorities had already alerted the group by radio.

The group was warned not to approach within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of the debris. Fortunately, the piece handled by the man contained a negligible level of radiation. In the following days other pieces were found, scattered along frozen desert; one emitted 200 roentgens of radiation per hour -- the level which is enough kill a human after a two-hour exposure. A special container was hastily prepared to remove the object. For several months afterwards cleanup teams continued their efforts.

Not pleasant, but the waste wasn't spread through the atmosphere and no one was hurt.

Surprising to most people, it isn't all that difficult to make a container that can survive reentry, and even if it doesn't, most of the waste would land and just make for a messy clean-up. Waste that would vaporize would do so high in the atmosphere (as opposed to Chernoby's, which was low) and would dissipate.

And more: http://www.nuclearspace.com/past_accidents.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I have to side with cyrusabdollahi on this one (can you believe it?). You do need to be a surgeon to competently debate the merits of different surgical abortion techniques.

Heh - that isn't all that the issue encompasses, though.

Anyway, I personally think that a good half the purpose of these debates is to educate.

edit: Oh, and since this issue ultimately will not be decided by experts, it is important that we endeavour to reduce the ignorance level of the people who will be making the decisions.

edit2: In addition, since the energy issue requires knowledge of pretty much every scientific, engineering, and social science discipline, if being an expert is required, there isn't a person on the planet capable of dealing with the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't trust those things to hold in the material that long that safe though. Things have a way of finding failure that you did not expect.

Agreed - which is why the 100,000 year design criteria for the storage facility is absurd. With 50 year plans, we can do pretty much all that we really are capable of doing for minimizing the risk.