Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?

[ChrisVer]

So back here, with more time at my disposal.

From an individual's point of view: In general I think that ignorance from the general public is the reason why they fear nuclear plants. I think the main cause of problem is that when you speak to an outsider about radioactivity or nuclear, the first think that crosses their mind is "cancer" or nuclear bombs exploding (this causes awe) . Cancer is of course something bad and so anything "nuclear" is associated to danger and causes fears... Fear is an emotion, and as such it can't be rationalized - even if you explain the public that it's very safe they will always feel uncomfortable with having or using it. Two incidents in 60 years created enough discomfort for those who want to actively fight against nuclear power.

From a political point of view: this results to politicians who are against nuclear projects (which affects how the governments look at funding those stuff). I don't know if the arrow shows from leadership to people (propaganda "ala Al Gore" etc) , or from people to leadership (elections, where incompetent people elect incompetent politicians). For some reason "green" stuff are better accepted by the general public, even though they are inefficient and ridiculous. But is that weird? For me no... The same people believe that medicine is "unnatural" and so cause more damage than they fix... they believe that bio-products are better for their health than normal products (people are ok with paying more to purchase bio, and they even think they taste better).
Nuclear power is not wanted by the great powers too; a nuclear plant can as well be used for the production of nuclear weapons. When you have conflicting interests between countries, this scenario is bad (afterall nuclear weapons are not used in wars nowadays but they are used for diplomacy; as a sign of power).

For the media: the media are not there to spread a truth or a lie. I don't think truths/lies exist in a social level (everyone has their own truths and lies - even when a couple breaks up you can hear several even conflicting reasons for that from the couple). So, media have a certain amount of time at their disposal to speak their views and make money. Popular ideas are popular to the media and unpopular ones- "well ehmm, they don't sell". Playing with emotions (not educating) also helps in that job... So they will prefer people who can say amazing stuff in a short amount of time, or even stimulate emotions like "amazement","disgust", "fear" or "anger", rather than people who would explain things scientifically (leading the general viewers to boredom). Documentaries are more educational for the general public (although I don't like physics ones due to pop-sci), but they target a specific group of people (who are willing to watch them).

Overall, I believe that nuclear power is currently out of the plans and won't return any time soon (if ever).

 

[russ_watters]

Coming back to the title of the thread "
Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?"

Let's go back to the 1950ies. Everybody was excited about nuclear energy, its possibilities, especially politicians and the general public, nuclear energy was supported by immense public investments. People were much more interested in science than nowadays.
So you had already all you asked for at the very beginning.

Thanks for the history, but that doesn't really address the issue, which is the perception problem that exists today.

Much of the origin of the anti-nuclear power movement are with the anti-nuclear weapons movement that started in the late 1950s.

However, what you say is only true insofar as it applies to the general movement. The very first true commercial nuclear plant was canceled due to public pressure/local citizen conflict. I consider this to be largely NIMBYism, but it had similar undertones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_anti-nuclear_movement#After_the_Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty

If anything, the issue has been handled backwards by anti-nuclear activists, since when the technology is in its infancy is when there is the most risk. But today with a 50+ year track record and at least 30 years of active development and improvement, the industry/technology has proven exceedingly safe.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is that people see life pictures of exploding reactors, scattered fuel rods and the like in real time while Japanese politicians seemed to act headless and either not to possesses sufficient information or, even worse, keep it secret.

Not to be snarky, but are you referring to real life here? Neither of those things you mentioned actually happened!

The list of possible causes for this failiure could be very long, but I think the main problem was the hybris and arrogance of nuclear energies proponents.

Could you be more specific please (or even post some references)? As far as I can tell, there is no coherent or even loose "pro nuclear" movement. For right now, the issue is essentially dead. So where, exactly are you seeing this hubris/arrogance? You and @nikkkom are claiming unfulfilled/false/overconfident promises are being made, but I have not seen any such promises actually cited. So please tell me: where are you getting this from? I'll be blunt: it looks to me like the two of you are making these things up, as products of your own active imaginations, similar to the above things that you say you saw but didn't happen.

 

[mheslep]

rate doubles every 5 years,

Group think? If the rate doubles at all, more like every several hundred years per the models. SLR in the do nothing scenario of emissions is around 1.5 ft by 2100, per the models.

 

[gmax137]

Group think? If the rate doubles at all, more like every several hundred years per the models. SLR in the do nothing scenario of emissions is around 1.5 ft by 2100, per the models.

Yeah, using Davy_Crockett's rates (3.4 mm/year doubling every 5 years) I get your 1.5 feet in 2039 which is 60 years too soon. Keeping those rates out to 2100 would yield a rise of ~7500 feet. The "power of compounding" indeed.

 

[russ_watters]

I liked very much some of the earlier discussion of, for example, the risks and costs of coal vs. nuclear; and also solar was briefly discussed. However at the moment it's focused only on nuclear in isolation. It seems to me that the earlier comments pointed to what might be more useful - namely, looking at risks, economic/logistic constraints, and benefits for all feasible electric power sources in future; and not just nuclear's risks in isolation.

This is an excellent point: it isn't a binary nuclear or nothing choice. No reasonable analysis can look at nuclear in isolation but instead must compare nuclear to viable alternatives.

 

[russ_watters]

How about researching it. No one in Japan raised any questions about tsunami deaths? There were no lawsuits? You are sure?

I did not say "no lawsuits" or "no...questions". Don't be disingenuous and don't purposely misrepresent the arguments of others.

Now. Your own participation in this thread and similar ones belies your implication -- you must be aware that the vast majority of the critical treatment of the event was focused on Fukushima because you are neck deep in it. But to put a finer point on it, I tried a general search of "Japan earthquake tsunami lawsuit" and here is what the first 20 results looked like:
14 about Fukushima
3 about celebrity poor taste
2 about a lawsuit over an elementary school that was not evacuated fast enough
1 other

Trying harder to target building codes and enforcement, "japan earthquake tsunami building code lawsuit":
Of the first 10 hits, 8 were praising the building codes and the other two were irrelevant.

So yes, it is perfectly fair to say that the nuclear industry is viewed far harsher despite a vastly superior safety record than the general construction industry. It's the expectations gap.

It wasn't a gift. It was a promise based on which general public agreed that this technology can be allowed. Nuclear industry failed to keep it.

Still so what. What you got was still spectacular compared to the alternatives.

A failed promise/prediction does not make nuclear power unsafe it just makes it a little less spectacularly safe than predicted.
Your definition of "spectacularly safe" is... er... "interesting".

Then come up with your own specific criteria and weigh nuclear power fairly against it. What you are doing here is using "failed promise" as an excuse to avoid actually looking at the safety record and judging it critically/fairly against the alternatives.

Where do you see me promoting replacing nuclear with fossil fuel power plants?

You need to do better than that and you need to separate backwards and forwards in time:
1. Looking backwards, it is historical fact that coal power was increased due to the decrease in nuclear exploitation. It already happened so there is nothing that can be done to escape it. It can't be escaped by claiming lack of actual support for coal because that is the logical result of attacking nuclear without proposing a viable alternative: the default alternative gets filled in.
2. You need to actually advocate a viable alternative moving forward in order for your claim of not promoting fossil fuels to be true in light of #1. Because the logic still applies and the substituting of coal for nuclear is ongoing.

 

[Kaura]

I think that a lot of people are fearful of Nuclear Energy due to events such as the Chernobyl disaster. Sadly, it is nearly impossible to have a viable energy source that does not possesses the ability to cause disaster. I mean oil spills happen every now and then but instead of halting the use of oil, the industry does its best to clean up the the aftermath and furthermore works to make such events less likely in the future. I think that Nuclear Energy when done right is a viable and relatively clean source of power.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Looking through the posts in this thread, I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal. Perhaps some expert regarding this might comment.

 

[UsableThought]

Looking through the posts in this thread, I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal. Perhaps some expert regarding this might comment.

It was mentioned, quite a bit; a lot of back-and-forth discussion on waste. See for example posts #21, #22, #26, #27, and #34.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi UsableThought:

I much appreciate your listing these references to waste. It is clear that my statement was an error.

I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal.

I should have said: I failed to notice any discussion of nuclear waste. I did not read all the posts, but only scanned them, and apparently not carefully enough.

My impression of the discussion in the posts you listed is that the arguments were mostly about CO2 being a much more serious problem than nuclear plant waste. For example:

However, to directly answer your question: yes, it is much better to have a drum of nuclear waste that you can completely control than it is to have a million tons of CO2, free in the atmosphere, that you can't control.

The ONLY reason we ever need to worry about CO2 and global warming is because it risks our lives in the long term. Nuclear waste is stored deep down Earth where it won't affect us. They are controlled unlike CO2 that are emitted all over the atmosphere and are not controlled.

I certainly agree that CO2 is more serious, but I am optimistically hopeful that humans will be able to deal with two serious problems at the same time rather than fail to deal with either, which seems to be our current state.

HAYAO's comment (re-quoted below) I think is incorrect.

Nuclear waste is stored deep down Earth where it won't affect us.​

In the United States, I understand that a great deal of nuclear waste is awaiting disposal in containers stored on the surface near the nuclear plant facility. This is because there is no current national policy for it's permanent disposal. If I am mistaken about this I hope some one with well informed knowledge about this will post a reference. There is also the issue of getting the waste to an agreed upon disposal site. Will it be by trucks on highways or by trains traveling on not very well maintained tracks, and in either case, passing nearby highly populated areas. Perhaps a knowledgeable person can calculate and post the numerical risks.

There is also one additional issue I have not noticed being discussed, and which I am unable to evaluate. If a policy were developed to replace fossil fuel plants for electricity generation with additional nuclear plants, how long would it take before the new plants would be online? If this policy were intended to "solve" the CO2 problem, would it be timely? In the mean time, it seems to me, it would be an excuse to ignore the CO2 problem.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[russ_watters]

Looking through the posts in this thread, I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal. Perhaps some expert regarding this might comment.

I'm not sure, but I thought I mentioned it before: the waste disposal issue is a political fiction. People have been trained to believe that because the waste is dangerous, that is a problem, but it is far safer to have dangerous waste in solid or liquid form - so you can control and store it - than in gaseous form - so you can't.

The US doesn't have a centralized storage facility, which is fine for now - the waste is fine stored on site.

 

[russ_watters]

There is also the issue of getting the waste to an agreed upon disposal site. Will it be by trucks on highways or by trains traveling on not very well maintained tracks, and in either case, passing nearby highly populated areas. Perhaps a knowledgeable person can calculate and post the numerical risks.

As I said above, it is fine for now stored on site, but yes as nuclear plants shut down it will eventually need to be moved. So you ship it in foot-thick armored containers that can survive getting hit by a train.

There is also one additional issue I have not noticed being discussed, and which I am unable to evaluate. If a policy were developed to replace fossil fuel plants for electricity generation with additional nuclear plants, how long would it take before the new plants would be online? If this policy were intended to "solve" the CO2 problem, would it be timely? In the mean time, it seems to me, it would be an excuse to ignore the CO2 problem.

By some accounts it may already be too late, but if a country like the US wanted to build a bunch to replace their coal plants and put a serious effort in like France it would probably take 20-30 years.

 

[mfb]

Transporting nuclear waste is not an issue. Or at least just an issue in terms of protests stopping them, but not in terms of safety of the waste handling. You could have the train crash into a solid wall, fall from a bridge, keep the containers in a fire, or explode a container full of fuel next to them, and the containers would still contain the waste without any leaks. You can even simulate a plane flying into it - a massive one ton projectile directly hitting the container at the speed of sound. And it still survives without leaks.

If a policy were developed to replace fossil fuel plants for electricity generation with additional nuclear plants, how long would it take before the new plants would be online?

5-10 years construction time. Planning time depends on the political system, it does not have to be long. We could probably shut down most coal power plants in 15-20 years.

 

[SredniVashtar]

IMBO the problem with nuclear power is not of technical nature. I have faith in the work of physicists, and I reasonably trust that of engineers. And I do agree that nuclear power, if done right, is a low-pollution form of energy production. What I do not trust, though, are accountants and politicians. They can f**k up all the good work done by physicists and engineers without even batting an eye.
Now, if something goes wrong, really wrong, with a nuclear plant, you are probably forfeiting a lot of money but most importantly a chunk of your land. For a long time. We are talking future generation time here. (Or have they already started rebuilding in the Chernobyl area?)
If something goes wrong with a traditional fossil fuel plant you affect only the current generation and for a limited amount of time. In fact, something is going wrong right now: pollution is claiming lives - but these are the current generation lives. Ideally, if we were to stop all fossil fuel plants now (because we finally discovered a plant powered by kitten cuteness), all that damage would stop now. If we were to stop all nuclear plants now, you would not not stop the damage done around Chernobyl. On the contrary: from what I've read, we have to pray that there will be no forest fires in the area, otherwise the contaminants would be put into the atmosphere again (correct me if I am wrong).

So, in the end, the answer to "would you like the clean energy of a nuclear power plant?" sounds exactly like "would you trust a politician with the lives of your children?".

I know the answer to that.
But your mileage may vary.

_{(Edited to fix some of my grammar)}

 

[Mark Deardorff]

As an engineering student at USC, in the thick of Hollywood 70's hype, I watched Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome. Wilford Brimley, before his oatmeal days, played the company guy taking Lemmon down. I shook my head. The shoe being on the other foot as those making the claims (generally the anti-establishment camp) were the reactionaries whereas Science found itself being pilloried.

 

[mfb]

Now, if something goes wrong, really wrong, with a nuclear plant, you are probably forfeiting a lot of money but most importantly a chunk of your land. For a long time. We are talking future generation time here. (Or have they already started rebuilding in the Chernobyl area?)
If something goes wrong with a traditional fossil fuel plant you affect only the current generation and for a limited amount of time.

Land use for coal mines in Germany alone is similar to the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. And this is only counting regions that are still wasteland today.
Jharia in India has 400,000 residents in danger because of a coal mine fire that started in 1916. That is not a typo, the fire has been burning for more than 100 years. The area has been inhospitable by Western standards for decades.
Centralia, Pennsylvania became a ghost town, it has a coal mine fire that has been burning since 1962.
And many more, most of them started by humans, although a few are natural.

Brennender Berg has a coal fire humans started in 1688, but luckily without danger to the population.

Nuclear accidents can render some area inhospitable for quite a long time, but coal mining accidents do that as well, and for surface coal mining it is the design operation to produce wasteland. Yes you can renaturalize the mined areas (if there is no fire), but for the same price you can also remove the whole radioactive surface layer in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and store it somewhere safely.

 

[bhobba]

IMHO it has nothing to do with education about nuclear power.

Its an education issue all right - but one of understanding risk.

Take a look at the anti-vaccers. The risk is minuscule and the benefits incalculable - yet they eschew it. I asked one would they drive their child to school if it was too far to walk? Of course. You realize the risk of vaccination, nuclear power plant disaster (from properly designed and managed modern ones) is less, in fact a lot less than the chances of dying while driving to school. It had zero effect on their view - they simply do not understand risk - that's all it is.

I have IBS and tight pelvic muscles (36% of people with IBS have that as well) that causes me all sorts of problems. Studies show I have a slightly lower risk of Bowel cancer than those that don't have it. The recommended action, and agreed by my doctor is to watch for so called red flags (blood coming out etrc etc) before getting things like colonoscopy's done. I had one a few years ago now - all clear which reduces my risk even further. Yet many people say (not doctors) get a colonoscopy - again no understanding of risk. There is a 1 in 350 chance of serious complication from a colonoscopy, although its reduced if you see a well trained colonoscopist. The risk vs reward is not there right now - it may be in the future - but not now.

Again people simply do not understand risk.

Thanks
Bill

 

[MattRob]

I'm not sure, but I thought I mentioned it before: the waste disposal issue is a political fiction. People have been trained to believe that because the waste is dangerous, that is a problem, but it is far safer to have dangerous waste in solid or liquid form - so you can control and store it - than in gaseous form - so you can't.

The US doesn't have a centralized storage facility, which is fine for now - the waste is fine stored on site.

Politics like this really, really disgusts me sometimes.

We have a power source that is, to the first order, literally millions of times better than coal, natural gas, or even anything else.

It is by far the safest form of power we, as humans, have ever devised, and the numbers on it are straightforward, unambiguous, and undebatable, the bottom line is it is safer:

It is also the among the cheapest sources of power, only a close second to hydro-electric dams, but it beats coal, natural gas, wind, and solar:

http://library.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/default/files/Total%20Cost%20of%20Electricity%20Production%20per%20kWh.JPG

From hereAnd issues with waste disposal is, as Rus Watters put it, a media fiction. I've toured nuclear powerplants before and the matter is simple; they simply put spent fuel rods in the same tank as the reactor. Granted, it was a small, experimental reactor, things are probably different for big powerplants (and plants where the reactor doesn't sit below ground level), but I was completely shocked when I saw what a non-issue it is. You can of course, also simply put it in solid drums and store it underground somewhere. I've seen the media pretend there's issues with it leaking into the water supply, but you should be more worried about being eaten by Bigfoot - that doesn't happen and it's not an issue unless you're a complete idiot. It has some stellarly low chance of happening if you just literally dumped the spent fuel on the ground, maybe. But just like we know not to drink the gasoline we put in our cars, and to drive on the right side of the road, we can handle things safely if we aren't stupid. Put it in drums, inspect the drums every so often. Problem solved.

Though I'm very much willing to bet a hundred times as many people die from drinking gasoline on accident and without question thousands of times more people die from driving on the wrong side of the road than the small number of people who have ever died from nuclear power. Honestly you should be more worried about dying from all these wind farms they keep making - those kill in-between about twice to four times as many people per kWh as nuclear does, depending on your source.
There is no debate. Not unless you're refusing to be reasonable, or are intentionally making stupid decisions that benefit yourself and hurt the rest of mankind. Nuclear is the best source of power, and it is wrong that anyone would think otherwise. I think people who perpetuate this nonsense are owed the same respect as anti-vaccers, and people who say the Earth is 7,000 years old and flat.

The only reason you could ever make such a monumentally wrong decision as to oppose nuclear is if you're not being reasonable. You had might as well make that 80-hour drive to that vacation across the country without stopping to rest and while drunk as opposed to taking a plane because "flying is dangerous".

...I have opinions.

Or, facts, rather.

 

[bhobba]

It is by far the safest form of power we, as humans, have ever devised, and the numbers on it are straightforward, unambiguous, and undebatable, the bottom line is it is safer:

All true - but because people do not understand risk facts like this have zero impact.

Before tackling this important issue we need to get people to understand basic risk vs reward. Once you do its a no brainer - but the average person has no idea about risk.

I sometimes think basic actuarial science should be taught at school. The fact its about money hopefully will make them interested and they will understand risk a lot better.

Thanks
Bill

 

[OCR]

It was mentioned, quite a bit; a lot of back-and-forth discussion on waste. See for example posts #21, #22, #26, #27, and #34.

UsableThought, thanks for taking the time to make links to those post numbers... I wish more people would take that effort.

On some long threads, posters just write... "see post #10, see post #22, or see post #98"... that makes for a lot of wasted time clicking back page numbers and scrolling....

You deserve a big....

 

[SredniVashtar]

Again people simply do not understand risk.

What was the risk of the Fukushima diesel generators to stop working for having been hit by a tsunami, again?
A lot of people seem not to understand risk.

And regarding waste disposal, it is a nonexistent issue as long as there is someone caring for them. How many years are we talking? How many generations?

 

[MattRob]

All true - but because people do not understand risk facts like this have zero impact.

Before tackling this important issue we need to get people to understand basic risk vs reward. Once you do its a no brainer - but the average person has no idea about risk.

I sometimes think basic actuarial science should be taught at school. The fact its about money hopefully will make them interested and they will understand risk a lot better.

Thanks
Bill

I think the key to speaking to people who don't understand all the nuance is sometimes simply to avoid it. It's not a lie, it's not an oversimplification, the simple fact is it is THE safest kind of power there is.

Of course I love technical details and discourse, but sometimes the goal is to show people how to think better, and sometimes you just got to make a point because something just greatly upsets you (like how irrational people are about nuclear power).

So you say it like it is - leave no room for rebuttal or response because there is none. There is no debate, there are only details that describe the fact that it is safer. Going into details makes that unclear to most people. Explaining "why" might make it seem as though it's less certain.

I don't know if this is something most people in science already know, but it was a fascinating discovery for me - and that is that when you speak in public (like on an online forum, or at an event, or public letters or a column), you aren't really speaking to the person you're speaking to, you're speaking to the large number of silent bystanders. Hardcore anti-nuclear people are crazy and nothing will convince them - but you don't have to, you just have to convince the vast majority of the silent onlookers.
Also, it's freaking amazing that we've discovered a kind of rock that literally just radiates power. I mean, underneath all the nuclear decay laws, water boilers and turbines and physics, that's what it really boils down to and it's absolutely amazing. There's a kind of rock that just radiates "free" power, seemingly from nowhere, almost as though a blatant disregard for conservation of energy. It just radiates "free" power.

...I'm being poetic, here, I know of course it doesn't violate conservation laws and I've studied nuclear decay some (hence the quotes around "free"), but how many other places do we get something so phenomenal as a type of rock that just radiates usable power? It's like some kind of miracle and people are wrongly afraid of this amazing thing that can solve so many problems.

I mean, it really is "free" because we, as humans, didn't have to put any power into make it do that. Physically speaking it's atomic decay and it's of course the rest mass of nuclei turning to energy, but we don't have to do that. It's an amazing happenstance of physics that we can help it along, though, through enrichment and such to make it go from merely being radioactive to an active nuclear reaction. I suppose you can say the same thing of fossil fuels - we liberate "free" energy in the same sense from those - but with those you quickly burn the fuel. With nuclear power, you get millions of times the power out of it per kg. That rock just sits there and radiates power for us to use (though again, I understand in a reactor we take it a lot further than mere radioactivity, but radioactivity is the basis which it builds off of).

 

[MattRob]

What was the risk of the Fukushima diesel generators to stop working for having been hit by a tsunami, again?
A lot of people seem not to understand risk.

And regarding waste disposal, it is a nonexistent issue as long as there is someone caring for them. How many years are we talking? How many generations?

Tsunami kills SIXTEEN THOUSAND people! Oh, no biggie - but it damaged generators that led to - what, 2 people dying? The horror!

A lot fewer generations than those that will feel the effects of rampant Co2 emissions.

What you should ask, is when someone dies in a wind farm accident, or dies working on solar panels, how many years will that effect their loved ones when nuclear would have prevented that?

On the scale the government works at, the cost of maintaining nuclear waste stockpiles is trivial. The cost inflicted by Co2 emissions is not. And I have no doubt that future generations will find ways to patch the trivial issues of nuclear waste - though they'll probably be more preoccupied with much more pressing questions, like how to produce power for their population, and much more challenging issues, like colonizing Mars and beyond, or finally getting that grand unified theory.

 

[bhobba]

What was the risk of the Fukushima diesel generators to stop working for having been hit by a tsunami, again?

I do not know the exact risks of the older nuclear power plant at Fukushima to suffer catastrophic failure leading to the disaster it had - there are people more knowledgeable in that on this thread. But when it was found out the likelihood of a tsunami was much greater than previously thought that should have immediately triggered a risk reassessment and appropriate action taken. But it didn't. Again a failure to understand risk.

And regarding waste disposal, it is a nonexistent issue as long as there is someone caring for them. How many years are we talking? How many generations?

We have reactors these days that actually use the waste as fuel:


Thanks
Bill

 

[MattRob]

What was the risk of the Fukushima diesel generators to stop working for having been hit by a tsunami, again?
A lot of people seem not to understand risk.

And regarding waste disposal, it is a nonexistent issue as long as there is someone caring for them. How many years are we talking? How many generations?

In any case, it's futile to try to somehow say that an outdated reactor with known design flaws causing a media fear hype is somehow comparable in risk assessment to the simple, unarguable number of fewer people dead per kWh and even fewer people displaced, when you factor in coal mine fires. The irony is the comment itself doesn't reflect risk assessment with the implication that nuclear is dangerous. The undeniable fact is it is safer, regardless of your nitpicking one widely publicized event. Focusing on the smaller cost to human life does not make it a bigger cost than the actual, bigger cost.

You're just holding a magnifying glass to the smaller risk to human life and pretending it's bigger. When you mention Fukushima to try to make nuclear look dangerous, you're desperately holding a magnifying glass to an anthill and proclaiming that it's larger than the mountain behind you.

And when you complain about the waste disposal issue effecting future generations, you're again doing the same thing, when the mountain of Co2 emissions and powerplant-accident deaths and higher costs of electricity sit behind you.

I'd place a wager that using Nuclear, as opposed to Solar, would save so much energy that it'd more than make up for the cost of maintaining the waste storage. Maybe wind, but the variability of those power sources is not an issue to be ignored unless there's some great solution I don't know of.

 

[SredniVashtar]

Tsunami kills SIXTEEN THOUSAND people! Oh, no biggie - but it damaged generators that led to - what, 2 people dying?

You are missing the point.
The diesel generators that contributed to the Fuku-up at Daichi were part of plant build by people who allegedely should have understood risk assessment. They clearly did not understand it too well, did they? I wonder if money played a part in that kind of overlooking.

As for the wastes, that 3% that decays between 1000 and 10000 years, provided they will be stored in the safest place designated by scientists (and not a not so ideal choice resulting from politicians' compromise) can you be sure they will be taken care of after all that time? Will you write instruction in English, Latin, Sumerian, Hieroglyphs or Linear A? Ten thousand years is a long time. I bet they won't be using Unicode anymore.

As I said before, the technical aspect is only part of the story.

 

[bhobba]

The cost inflicted by Co2 emissions is not.

I am not a climate change denier, but what really worries me is I saw a show by a very respectable climate change scientist that said - its already too late - even if there was zero emissions tomorrow it is not going to stop the looming catastrophe. We need to plan on how to handle that now. Of course we should in the meantime try and get to that zero emissions goal (it will be very hard eg the Africans that burn massive amounts of wood fires - what do we do about that - I have no idea) - but by itself its useless - we are already - well screwed.

Thanks
Bill

 

[MattRob]

You are missing the point.
The diesel generators that contributed to the Fuku-up at Daichi were part of plant build by people who allegedely should have understood risk assessment. They clearly did not understand it too well, did they? I wonder if money played a part in that kind of overlooking.

As for the wastes, that 3% that decays between 1000 and 10000 years, provided they will be stored in the safest place designated by scientists (and not a not so ideal choice resulting from politicians' compromise) can you be sure they will be taken care of after all that time? Will you write instruction in English, Latin, Sumerian, Hieroglyphs or Linear A? Ten thousand years is a long time. I bet they won't be using Unicode anymore.

As I said before, the technical aspect is only part of the story.

Just keep holding that magnifying glass up to the anthill, and maybe one day you'll convince me it's bigger than that mountain.

This - okay, I'll stay polite, but really, this does absolutely nothing to the solid, hard fact that more people die per kWh of ANY OTHER power source.

You simply cannot argue it isn't safer than any other kind of power. That is factually wrong. So what are you even doing at this point?

Do you think money isn't involved in all the deaths that other kinds of power face? Is nuclear somehow more corrupt than coal or gas - probably the ones who started all this anti-nuclear nonsense and fear-mongering to begin with? Is the industry that spends more money on safety than any of the others and has less death per kWh than any others the greedy one that puts money before human life?
As for waste, in 100 years, I hope we'll have such easy access to space that "throw it into the sun" will be an affordable option.

100 years ago, we were in the middle of WWI and the only computers we had were rough mechanical things, though perhaps they had some analog by 1917?

Also, in 1917 it would still be 9 years before anyone flew a liquid fueled rocket, and 17 years since some vague reports of the first one ever being built exist. Earlier this year (2017), SpaceX landed a reused first stage of a Falcon 9.

When the first Saturn V took off in 1967, it had more power than was available to the entire human race a century before. And it did this only 41 years after the first small, experimental liquid fueled rocket lifted off the ground.

I don't think radioactive waste will be an issue to humanity in 100, never mind 150 years. Already companies are setting their sights on mining asteroids, and the biggest innovations in space exploration are now private companies. Consider that.
EDIT: And it doesn't have to be stored in the perfect place scientists say. It just has to be stored in drums that people check up on every once in a while. That's literally all it would take. Again, the lower cost of power production from nuclear would easily offset this cost.

But it doesn't even need that. Why not go ahead and store it at powerplants where you're already storing the active material and have all the security and monitoring in place, anyways? To say nothing of how bhobba pointed out that we can still use it (the waste) to produce power.

 

[SredniVashtar]

You're just holding a magnifying glass to the smaller risk to human life and pretending it's bigger.

Actually I did not mention human life - just money and land.

And I have just been told that a single nuclear accident (Chernobyl) has made inhabitable a region as big as the whole coalmine wasteland of Germany - which is used to produce almost half the electrical energy of that Country, and then is also exported. I'd say that small risk has produced a pretty darn tangible effect. But again, I have no doubt about the fact that if done right nuclear power is the cleanest and more efficient way to produce energy. The problem is that to do it right, one has to overcome problems that are not technical (you know, those pesky accountant and politicians) and it appears nuclear advocates are not willing to see them.

 

[bhobba]

I don't think radioactive waste will be an issue to humanity in 100, never mind 150 years. Already companies are setting their sights on mining asteroids, and the biggest innovations in space exploration are now private companies. Consider that.

What was it Asimov said - the answer to technology misapplied is technology well applied. He gave the example of cavemen burning fires in caves and the smoke that came with it. Was the answer to stop burning fires - no - it was to come up with the chimney.

As I said we are already screwed because of CO2 emissions - but is humanity doomed - of course not. We will find some way to solve it. What I do know is it won't be by politically working together, setting targets, providing subsidies for solar panels on roofs etc - all this rubbish you hear to resolve it. Just take one example - here in Queensland Australia where I live they offered an over the top subsidy for solar panels on the roof of 40 cents per KW hour. Those that took advantage of it are on the gravy train - they don't have electricity bills - they get money instead - quite a bit of money actually. In fact those that didn't get on the gravy train are paying 13% more for their power because of it. That's the trouble with government intervention - unintended consequences. IMHO its even worse than that - it was obvious from the start it would happen - they just didn't care. The real solution - battery storage and going off the grid which is now possible due to new batteries becoming available from Leon Musk and others. But that had nothing to do with politicians.

So - I don't know how these problems will be resolved, but they will be and it won't be by the people the public scream to to fix it - politicians - they just make it worse.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Looking through the posts in this thread, I notice one aspect of nuclear power risk is not mentioned: waste disposal. Perhaps some expert regarding this might comment.

As was pointed out it has been mentioned quite a bit. But I also mentioned the solution - new reactors that use the waste as fuel. It gets rid of waste and you get power to boot.

Thanks
Bill

 

[MattRob]

Actually I did not mention human life - just money and land.

And I have just been told that a single nuclear accident (Chernobyl) has made inhabitable a region as big as the whole coalmine wasteland of Germany - which is used to produce almost half the electrical energy of that Country, and then is also exported. I'd say that small risk has produced a pretty darn tangible effect. But again, I have no doubt about the fact that if done right nuclear power is the cleanest and more efficient way to produce energy. The problem is that to do it right, one has to overcome problems that are not technical (you know, those pesky accountant and politicians) and it appears nuclear advocates are not willing to see them.

What was it Asimov said - the answer to technology misapplied is technology well applied. He gave the example of cavemen burning fires in caves and the smoke that came with it. Was the answer to stop burning fires - no - it was to come up with the chimney.

As I said we are already screwed because of CO2 emissions - but is humanity doomed - of course not. We will find some way to solve it. What I do know is it won't be by politically working together, setting targets, providing subsidies for solar panels on roofs etc - all this rubbish you hear to resolve it. Just take one example - here in Queensland Australia where I live they offered an over the top subsidy for solar panels on the roof of 40 cents per KW hour. Those that took advantage of it are on the gravy train - they don't have electricity bills - they get money instead - quite a bit of money actually. In fact those that didn't get on the gravy train are paying 13% more for their power because of it. That's the trouble with government intervention - unintended consequences. IMHO its even worse than that - it was obvious from the start it would happen - they just didn't care. The real solution - battery storage and going off the grid which is now possible due to new batteries becoming available from Leon Musk and others. But that had nothing to do with politicians.

So - I don't know how these problems will be resolved, but they will be and it won't be by the people the public scream to to fix it - politicians - they just make it worse.

Thanks
Bill

I think nuclear power companies are all too aware that their ability to continue to exist relies on them not messing up. I think they've more than learned their lesson. Particularly in Japan. I think they already knew it in the US.

Also, that sounds like easy bank. "Why, yes, I did need to produce 200 MW for my home. I have a lot of microwave meals. Now keep paying my $400/hr! I need to make up the cost of these panels fast!"

 

[bhobba]

Also, that sounds like easy bank. "Why, yes, I did need to produce 200 MW for my home. I have a lot of microwave meals. Now keep paying my $400/hr! I need to make up the cost of these panels fast!"

It was just politics mate. But even politicians learn. They know now not to give subsidies for these things - it backfires, or rather once people find they are paying 13% more they are shy, correctly, of letting governments do it again.

It will come about naturally as the cost of batteries and solar panels become cheaper than staying on the grid. Because of the large amount of sunshine we have here its predicted to take 7.5 years to recoup costs as of now. That will only get better over time and I suspect nearly all homes will have it 10-15 years time.

Of relevance to nuclear we just have to keep plugging away with facts and try to get people to understand risk - even the risk of government interference doing more harm than good.

BTW those that got on the gravy train paid it off very very quickly. One 'ninny' even suggested those that didn't do could have easily got a loan - it's there own fault. Yea right - an unmarried mother with 3 or 4 kids living in a government subsidized home can get a loan - the nonsense surrounding the energy debate is simply astounding. And the CO2 debate - I remember that idiot that said CO2 is a naturally occurring substance - how can it be harmful. We have a politician here in Aus that thinks climate change is all hooey - and he has an MBA from some prestigious US university (Chicago I think) and an honors degree in engineering. Obviously he is no fool. Yet he stood there and argued with Brian Cox denying climate change. Brian is like me - he thinks its too late and politics won't solve it - but to deny it - amazing.

Thanks
Bill

 

[SredniVashtar]

And the CO2 debate - I remember that idiot that said CO2 is a naturally occurring substance - how can it be harmful.

That's complete nonsense. It's made of atoms, hence it's chemical. So it's dangerous.

 

[MattRob]

[snip]

To be completely honest, I actually grew up in a very conservative household - politics aside, I actually only recently started considering that climate change might be a reality. Pride gets involved and rationality is difficult to maintain, but as someone who cherishes rationality and abhors bias, it was hard but I eventually kind of had to admit I've been wrong all these years. Granted, I still think politicians undoubtably take advantage of it, and sometimes people want to use it to their political ends and as such overblow it - but I won't deny it's real any more. There's enough data to show that something is happening. (and politicians taking advantage of it is not unique to it at all. People take advantage of anything and everything, even climate denial. News outlets don't seek truth so much as they pander to an audience they know will buy from them, same essentially goes to politicians)

At any rate, the worst thing that can happen to science is for politics to get involved. The Soviet Union undoubtably had a 100% agreement among social scientists that communism was the best and happiest form of government, for example. Unfortunately, it happens quite a bit. And unfortunately, that may be necessary to get the world to act on important matters.

But, all that aside and on-topic, there's absolutely no rational reason to be against nuclear. The data there is so solid that there's really no arguing it.

Wonderful thing about "the solution to filling caves with smoke isn't to stop making fires - its to invent chimneys".

Tomorrowland was one of my favorite movies - I can forgive any and all science flaws for how well it extolled futurism (I know "futurism" isn't really the term I'm looking for - I can't seem to find/remember it, but it's the general belief that technology can greatly improve humanity, and the future will be bright because of it if we embrace the future. Basically, that the world is changing, and as we make new technology and discoveries, it will change for the better).

 

[bhobba]

That's complete nonsense. It's made of atoms, hence it's chemical. So it's dangerous.

Of course it was nonsense. That's the point - some politicians are so ignorant, either by intent or they are just plain technologically and scientifically dumb, they say the silliest things on occasion.

Here is another. They are looking at introducing medicinal marijuana in Queensland and a group of politicians visited a hospital where it was used to ease terminally ill patients pain. The politicians moved on but one remained behind to tell one poor patient - you know its no good for you don't you.

The absurdity of some politicians is astounding with many many more off topic stories I could tell. As you probably have guessed I am very cynical of politicians.

I said the issue is one of not understanding risk - another biggie is politicians stupidity or rather the willingness to put getting electoral support before facts.

Thanks
Bill

 

[MattRob]

Of course it was nonsense. That's the point - some politicians are so ignorant, either by intent or they are just plain technologically and scientifically dumb, they say the silliest things on occasion.

Here is another. They are looking at introducing medicinal marijuana in Queensland and a group of politicians visited a hospital where it was used to ease terminally ill patients pain. The politicians moved on but on remained behind to tell one poor patient - you know its no good for you don't you.

The absurdity of some politicians is astounding with many many more off topic stories I could tell. As you probably have guessed I am very cynical of politicians.

I said the issue is one of not understanding risk - another biggie is politicians stupidity or rather the willingness to put getting electoral support before facts.

Thanks
Bill

It's the world we live in. They "play politics" so they can get power and do some good. They compromise, knowing they're making deals with the devil, but sometimes it's necessary to compromise and not get done what you need to get done, in the name of getting anything done, as opposed to nothing. CGP Grey made an excellent video that sums it up.

Let's just be glad we're far more free to talk, rail against, and extol things as they seem rational to us, as opposed to having to appeal to supporters, and that we work in a community of people who are far more informed on most topics than most.

I wonder how many scientists are pro or anti-nuclear?

 

[bhobba]

I wonder how many scientists are pro or anti-nuclear?

Everyone I know in the 'hard' sciences is pro nuclear.

The only ones I know who aren't are those in the touchy-feely areas like psychology. Its a bit strange actually because they have a lot of training in statistical analysis of experiments so you would think they understand risk.

And you are right - it's just the world we live in - as Winston Churchill, correctly, said 'Democracy is the worst system ever devised except for any other that's ever been tried',

Given the choice of forcing nuclear down peoples throats and having them freely decide against it I choose the second every time.

I too was bought up very conservative - I would describe myself as slightly to the left of Attila The Hun in those days and bowed at the feet of Ayn Rand. I have since recognized her error, and the error of my previous views - they have not taken on board the central lesson of science. I could spell it out - but as I am won't to say when I talk about Quantum Mechanics its best if you figure it out for yourself with just a hint. Feynman is my hint:


Thanks
Bill

 

[OCR]

I wonder how many... ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-nuclear_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States

https://www.google.com/search?q=scientists+against+nuclear+power&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Davy_Crockett]

So I think the upshot is that Nuclear Power generation is unreasonably feared by the public. It is largely safe. It was a beneficial move at the time and we can support the good people who manage it. The nuclear waste is not such a great volume compared with all the power it has made and; it is something manageable that can be contained and it should be dealt with and not feared. Experts should decide whether it is better to drill down into stable mantle, bury it and then collapse the tunnel, or tunnel into remote ancient stable mountain tops and collapse the entrance; whatever the right decision, it can be contained and a little run-off is not a concern with careful placement. The public should not be worried. It is one of the peaks of human ingenuity and technology and should be viewed with pride.

Ultimately, I say these are the last decades of this type of technology. The Gen-III reactors tax our construction limits and knowledge base, and the builders need billions in tax payer subsidies for the startup costs. The last ones will be built by young energetic populations in the Middle East and Asia, while North Americans and Europeans move on to less complex technology that better suits the obstacles of the 22nd Century and beyond.

If a person wants to learn details of the industry, I can recommend the blog by Will Davis, a former US Navy Reactor Operator:

http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.ca/

I think he writes about the facts with careful accuracy.

 

[bhobba]

Ultimately, I say these are the last decades of this type of technology.

True - fusion power is on the way
https://futurism.com/mini-reactors-could-make-affordable-fusion-power-a-reality-by-2030/

But we can still produce reactors as in the link I gave previously that uses reactor waste as fuel to get rid of it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[mfb]

True - fusion power is on the way
https://futurism.com/mini-reactors-could-make-affordable-fusion-power-a-reality-by-2030/

There are multiple companies making wild promises, but none of them has ever demonstrated a relevant fusion power, and not even a relevant triple product. futurism.com happily presents ever tiny step as "fusion tomorrow", of course.

 

[bhobba]

There are multiple companies making wild promises, but none of them has ever demonstrated a relevant fusion power, and not even a relevant triple product. futurism.com happily presents ever tiny step as "fusion tomorrow", of course.

Very true.

Fingers crossed it eventuates sooner than later - but its history is not confidence building.

However it will happen - eventually

Thanks
Bill

 

[Buzz Bloom]

You could have the train crash into a solid wall, fall from a bridge, keep the containers in a fire, or explode a container full of fuel next to them, and the containers would still contain the waste without any leaks. You can even simulate a plane flying into it - a massive one ton projectile directly hitting the container at the speed of sound. And it still survives without leaks.

Hi mfb:

The description you present for the nuclear waste containers seems quite amazing. Do you know of any official specifications for such containers? Do you know how large such a container would be, and how much they would cost, and how many would be needed? If such containers were constructed, I would guess the weakest part would be the seal used to close the container after the waste had been put into it. It would be interesting to read the seal specifications to see how they could be made so strong to withstand the scenarios you describe.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[SredniVashtar]

That's complete nonsense. It's made of atoms, hence it's chemical. So it's dangerous.

Of course it was nonsense.

I guess my joke just flew over you. :-)
I've met my share of "if it's natural it has to be good" (that also translate into "if it's chemical it must be bad"). My first instinct is to reply "Nature is a b1tch, so don't be so sure about that". But that won't cut it. Philosopy to the rescue: I usually ask them to drink a glass of hemlock to prove their point.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

We have a power source that is, to the first order, literally millions of times better than coal, natural gas, or even anything else.

Hi Matt:

I would much appreciate your posting a reference to the source of the various charts in your post.

I noticed that your last chart was from economist.com. Do you know if that chart included (estimated?) costs for the removal of nuclear wastes?

ADDED
I read the Economist article you gave a link to. The text there seems to me to be inconsistent with the cost chart. If the actual costs were so low, why do nuclear plants shut down due to their inability to compete?

Regards,
Buzz

 

[mfb]

The description you present for the nuclear waste containers seems quite amazing. Do you know of any official specifications for such containers? Do you know how large such a container would be, and how much they would cost, and how many would be needed? If such containers were constructed, I would guess the weakest part would be the seal used to close the container after the waste had been put into it. It would be interesting to read the seal specifications to see how they could be made so strong to withstand the scenarios you describe.

I think you misunderstood me. These containers are in service. They are used to carry around nuclear material in Europe.
They cost € 1.5 million per piece, but as they can be used frequently (if necessary) that is not a large cost factor.

I don't know what is used in the US, but probably something similar.

 

[jim hardy]

I don't know what is used in the US, but probably something similar.

1978 tests of a spent fuel cask

 

[MattRob]

Hi Matt:

I would much appreciate your posting a reference to the source of the various charts in your post.

I noticed that your last chart was from economist.com. Do you know if that chart included (estimated?) costs for the removal of nuclear wastes?

ADDED
I read the Economist article you gave a link to. The text there seems to me to be inconsistent with the cost chart. If the actual costs were so low, why do nuclear plants shut down due to their inability to compete?

Regards,
Buzz

Well it looks like I accidentally placed the wrong link on the source link, darn. But googling around a bit, I was able to find this, though I've admittedly only skimmed through it, it seems rather comprehensive and thorough. This makes a contrary claim, though it seems orders of magnitude less-researched and largely anecdotal.

Reverse-Google searching the chart shows a myriad of uses of it, hard to find the original, but here's one article that uses it.

And after searching around a lot more, it looks like it might originally be from here.

In short, I think the answer to your question is that they usually shut down due to a mandate of "it's old so it needs to be shut down" rather than inability to compete with costs. Or, similarly, perhaps, I would guess a lot of it is also imposing very expensive requirements on updating facilities.

It's interesting to note that nuclear power is something where upfront costs are enormous, but relatively low operating costs per kW more than make up for it.

Which, as expensive as running a safe, high-tech plant is, shouldn't be all too surprising considering that you burn fuel at something like two-millionth the rate of fossil fuels per kW.