Nuclear energy

[Minerva]

This is certainly a serious-business topic, so I figured we might have a thread on it.

As a scientist, I contend that nuclear energy has a proven history worldwide as a safe, sustainable source of energy of low environmental intensity, which can readily provide scalable baseload energy needs, and i support its expanded use.

What do you think?

[zenten]

I agree. Assuming of course proper controls and whatnot are used, but that's true for any large scale project.

[VannA]

I'm inclined to agree.

Certainly, I think it is a required stop gap-measure, between fossil fuels and other alternatives.

My largest concern is based mostly around the kind of embedding the fossil fuel industry has seen, regarding entrenched opposition to alternatives.

If the western world want's to keep its lifestyles, and the greater eastern world wants to start emulating us, there is simply no choice.

[Hawknc]

Yes, with appropriate international oversight. The risks can be easily managed, as long as people (read: nations, especially nations with less money than other nations) don't cut corners to save money.

[bonder]

We can see from France, a country that derives ~75% of its power from nuclear energy, that it certainly is feasible to do. I also think we need to be actively researching alternatives to fossil fuels in all directions, not just in nuclear power: we don't know from where the next big breakthrough will come. Simply the fact that we know we have a limited supply of fossil fuels should be enough to convince people that we need to be exploring all options for alternative fuel sources.

I think a lot of the public fear of nuclear power comes from a lack of understanding of radioactivity and science in general. Before we can get more nuclear plants operating, we need to have better public understanding of science so that people will support nuclear plants. Also, people need to continue researching methods of waste disposal/containment as that is, I think, the biggest problem with nuclear power.

[ZeroSum]

Integral Fast Reactor please. KTHXBYE.

[Gelsamel]

More like Pebble Bed Reactor kthxbai

[space_raptor]

The results of this poll so far make me very happy.

Nuclear energy is just beyond awesome, when it's done right.

[bonder]

Nuclear energy is just beyond awesome, when it's done right.

Yes, contained fission reactions are full of win. The only thing I can think of that has more win is contained fusion reactions, but that's quite a ways off.

[TheTankengine]

The problem is not nuclear fission technology. The problem is massive amounts of FUD and an extremely negative view perpetrated by "the masses" (dumbasses) which has crippled any possibilities for widespread nuclear power plants. "OH my god, teh radiation! Everyone within a mile gets teh cancer!"

Ugh, sometimes I really lament the public education, especially for things scientific or technical in nature, of this nation.

[Gelsamel]

SMOKE!

ZOMG bad chemicalz

I would normally delete this comment, but I'll let it stand because this is basically what most people think about the topic. Somehow water vapor becomes "cancer-smoke of death".

[ehiunno]

The results of this poll also make me extremely happy, until I realize this is a comunity of well educated, science inclined individuals. The rest of the country has a completely different opinion fro us about nucular(yeah, i said it) power. They think that every reactor will be another chernobyl or 3 mile island, when they really have no idea what caused the problems there, and how preventable accidents are when nations dont try to cut corners. I have to give major, major props to France. That is one thing we can learn from them, and probably the most intelligent thing that nation has done since helping us beat up the brits.

There is also the major problem that the widespread use of nuclear power would almost certainly require an international body regulating its use in smaller countries, and the support of the US government. The international bodies could probably function without US support, but it would be a huge assistance to have it, for it to become widespread in the US, it would require major government support, funding for education and outreach so people understand the facts and the safety, and probably partial monetary support of the start up reactors.

Sadly, that wont happen anytime soon, the fossil fuel companies have bought far too much sway over government opinion, the US wouldn't dare lose their support, and the companies wouldn't risk their ridiculous salaries to have a real sustainable alternative.

[Cheese]

The results of this poll also make me extremely happy, until I realize this is a comunity of well educated, science inclined individuals. The rest of the country has a completely different opinion fro us about nucular(yeah, i said it) power. They think that every reactor will be another chernobyl or 3 mile island, when they really have no idea what caused the problems there, and how preventable accidents are when nations dont try to cut corners. I have to give major, major props to France. That is one thing we can learn from them, and probably the most intelligent thing that nation has done since helping us beat up the brits.

Completely true, we all have at least some knowledge about this topic.

I support their use, for most of the reasons already stated. I know that there are problems about waste disposal, but there are much more important ones about CO2 disposal, too. There's not much I can say wouldn't be repitition, though.

[ZeroSum]

SMOKE!

ZOMG bad chemicalz

ZOMG FUD!

Radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants are both monitored and restricted. Also, radioactive emissions from cooling towers of nuclear power plants are minimal in modern reactor designs since there's a multi-stage coolant loop that segregates the coolant that cools the fuel rods and picks up heat from the coolant that drives the turbine.

Radioactive emissions from coal fired power plants are neither monitored nor restricted. Thus not only do coal plant designs have a higher potential release the actual release is neither known (except when specifically studied) nor regulated.

[zenten]

Maybe everyone else will switch to nuclear, and then the US will run out of fossil fuels, have their economy collapse, and thus the opinion of the US won't really matter on the world scene.

[Mittins]

That is one thing we can learn from them, and probably the most intelligent thing that nation has done since helping us beat up the brits.

*sigh*

However, I agree that Nuclear Power is pretty slick. I work for the corporation that researches and develops nuclear power plants in Canada, in fact.

[ehiunno]

That is one thing we can learn from them, and probably the most intelligent thing that nation has done since helping us beat up the brits.

*sigh*

dude, I was joking.

I'm curious to hear the fora's opinion on nuclear Fusion, if it doesn't derail the topic too much. Is it a worthwhile research campaign? Do you feel its practical to research it or a lost cause? (if this is too OT, then ignore it, or I can start another thread. Just let me know)

[Vaniver]

I'm curious to hear the fora's opinion on nuclear Fusion, if it doesn't derail the topic too much. Is it a worthwhile research campaign? Do you feel its practical to research it or a lost cause?

I would love to see fusion happen. I'm not sure it would be all that much more useful than fission, and so I'm leery to suggest too much investment in it. What I hear from other physicists is that fusion is almost hitting a dead end because every experiment requires bigger and bigger apparatus (much like particle physics), and so without concentrated government support it's not going to get very far. But there's a larger group that just repeats "fusion is the power of the future, and always will be."

[bonder]

But there's a larger group that just repeats "fusion is the power of the future, and always will be."

I've talked with nuclear engineers who share that sentiment. But some are reluctant to get into the research simply because they want to be able to see their research have an effect whereas the fusion researchers won't see the benefits of their research in their lifetime and likely not in their children's lifetime.

[iop]

I am generally positive about fission. However, even though modern reactors are very safe, the consequences of an accident (or an earthquake - see Japan) can be dire. Thus, I'd really prefer if nuclear reactors were only built in places where people don't cut corners, and where there are regular inspections by a non-corrupt international organization.

I also don't want to see breeder reactors like those in France.

Finally, so far, the problem of nuclear waste has not been solved, and given the reassurances that people want ("no leaking in x-thousand years"), it's going to be very difficult to even fulfill the technical side of things.

BTW: ignoring the fears of the "rest of the people who have no idea" is not going to be any help at all when it comes to storing nuclear waste in their backyard.

[ZeroSum]

The result is that within 200 years, such wastes are no more radioactive than the ores of natural radioactive elements.

So after 200 years of sequestered storage you can put the radioactive waste back where you mined it from. That's the main reason I like the IFR design.

[ehiunno]

When I was a West Point (summer program) I had a short nuclear physics/engineering class revolving around reactors and the professor was adamant about fusion research. He seemed to think that was the only reasonable future of large scale energy. I tend to disagree, but I am not completely educated on the topic. It is certainly promising, but by the time we attain it, I fear we may have spent much more money on the machines to do it than we actually save by using it, but I may be wrong.

I also I a mentor at NASA who felt anyone pursuing fusion research was at best misguided and at worst delusional.

[Toeofdoom]

The main problem I have with nuclear energy is that it still isnt renewable. It pollutes less than coal burning, but the mining, refining and transport of the fuel still makes pollution. Also, when I did this as a debate topic for english (not proper scientific research, but relevant) it seemed like we wouldnt be able to keep fission plants going that much longer anyway... the lowest estimates were around 30 anyway.

Also, the mining damages the environment alot, and I dont want that to happen. Nuclear fission is better than coal, but its worse than just about any renewable power in my opinion.

[mosc]

SMOKE!

ZOMG bad chemicalz

I would normally delete this comment, but I'll let it stand because this is basically what most people think about the topic. Somehow water vapor becomes "cancer-smoke of death".

OK, I'm a power engineer so I need to comment on this. Look at this picture, what do you see?



Looks like some of those nasty polluting towers from a nuclear station, doesn't it. Guess what though? It's NOT A NUCLEAR STATION! It's a coal station. See, ANY large power plant (save a hydro station) will have a cooling tower or two like these, regardless of what it uses to generate heated water.

The difference between a nuclear and a coal station is only in the source of the steam. In fact, when nuclear went out of fashion in the US, many plants converted their plants to fire coal.

Lets go back to the cooling towers for a second here. They are used to cool water. They are NOT exhaust gasses. This is a smoke stack for a coal plant:



nuclear plants don't have these. See that white stuff coming out the top? That's ash from a coal plant. Much of the ash is also mildly radio active. THESE are what you need to fear, not a nuclear plant.

According to nationmaster, the US emits 25% of the world's greenhouse gases and most of it comes from coal power plants. Currently ~50% of our power comes from coal (and most of those plants built BEFORE the clean air act). "Alternative" energies are developing but are impractical in the short-term (next 50 years). Demand is only increasing and moving power from one area of the country to another (new lines) is increasingly unpopular. Thus, you're seeing more and more new coal and gas plants.

The main costs in nuclear power are the construction of the plant, the considerably larger control staff (in comparison with a coal plant), and PR! Despite these huge costs, it's actually much cheaper to generate power from it than a coal plant. Why? Because the power is basically free. Turn the nob and it kicks out enough to power a small city.

Also, there's the misconception that the country doesn't use nuclear at all anymore. 25% of our power comes from nuclear... about 50 stations online. Course, we haven't had a new one in 20 years (except one this year which wasn't technically new, it was just closed for almost 30 years). Even if the country becomes the most nuclear friendly country on earth overnight, it'll take years before construction even starts on a new plant.

What's worse, the risk of a nuclear disaster at a nuclear plant or allowing the continuing disaster of generating 100,000-200,000 MW of coal power each moment? Nuclear is at least fully contained minus an emergency. Coal just spews 24/7 into your sky.

[ZeroSum]

The main problem I have with nuclear energy is that it still isnt renewable.

I like the taste of Coke more than Pepsi, but neither is as good as Dr. Pepper. Dr. Pepper, however, isn't for sale around here so I'll just keep drinking Pepsi.

It pollutes less than coal burning, but the mining, refining and transport of the fuel still makes pollution.

Just like coal?

Also, when I did this as a debate topic for english (not proper scientific research, but relevant) it seemed like we wouldnt be able to keep fission plants going that much longer anyway... the lowest estimates were around 30 anyway.

First, the lowest estimates for coal is the same or worse. Second, those numbers are probably using the 1% efficiency of most older nuclear reactors rather than the possible 99.5% efficiency of fourth-generation reactors. Third, IFR and other breeder reactors can use nuclear waste from other reactors and weapons as fuel.

Nuclear fission is better than coal, but its worse than just about any renewable power in my opinion.

Except for energy density.

It sounds like all you're seriously considering is the environmental impact of nuclear energy and all you're seriously comparing it to is renewable energy.

[Vaniver]

The main problem I have with nuclear energy is that it still isnt renewable. It pollutes less than coal burning, but the mining, refining and transport of the fuel still makes pollution. Also, when I did this as a debate topic for english (not proper scientific research, but relevant) it seemed like we wouldnt be able to keep fission plants going that much longer anyway... the lowest estimates were around 30 anyway.

Yeah, uranium mining pollutes. But look at the ecological impact per kilowatt-hour. As well, any projections that we're going to run out of uranium soon are laughable.

I am saddened to see the 100% disappear from the right of yes. It had to happen sometime, I suppose.

[zenten]

The main problem I have with nuclear energy is that it still isnt renewable. It pollutes less than coal burning, but the mining, refining and transport of the fuel still makes pollution. Also, when I did this as a debate topic for english (not proper scientific research, but relevant) it seemed like we wouldnt be able to keep fission plants going that much longer anyway... the lowest estimates were around 30 anyway.

Also, the mining damages the environment alot, and I dont want that to happen. Nuclear fission is better than coal, but its worse than just about any renewable power in my opinion.

Some individual reactors would have to be retired soon, yes, but we're not about to run out of fuel in our lifetime, or in quite a few generations to come. As to the pollution from mining and whatnot, remember that solar takes up lots of space, and mining the materials for building it and whatever storage power you use (since if you're using largely solar, you're gonna have to store it somehow) also causes pollution. It also isn't terribly effective for half the year where I am.

Tidal and geothermal are workable in only a few places. And hydro power is nasty unless you have the perfect set up naturally for it.

[ehiunno]

I am saddened to see the 100% disappear from the right of yes. It had to happen sometime, I suppose.

I was so severely temped to vote for lutefisk, but I didnt. I wonder who did... SHOW YOURSELF

To me, it is fairly obvious that nuclear>>what we have now. Of course, research into renewable energy must continue, but until we find a more perfect energy source modern nuclear seems to be one of our best options.

[ZeroSum]

To be fair, 50% efficiency silicon-based solar and inexpensive paint-on solar (separate technologies; the paint-on isn't close to 50% efficient) are both in the works. Imagine if your house's paint powered your home! How awesome would that be!?

[mosc]

there is enough uranium to last a very very long time. Also, we don't need to dig nearly as deep to get it. Also, the amount of energy from a pound of uranium vs a pound of coal is an astronomical difference. Nuclear is one of if not THE cleanest and future proofed options.

Windmills are great except you can't control how much power they put out. You could never depend on them for peak power on a hot day. In fact, hot days tend to have less wind. Also, windmills need to me constructed. Those parts take power to make. Finally, people don't want to put windmills on the spots where they'd do the most good. We have the same NIMB attitude about a windmill in your vista as we do about a cooling tower apparently.

Solar panels cost a lot of energy to make. Also, they have a limited lifespan and create disposal issues.

etc etc etc... All options have their problems.

[Hawknc]

There's also an economic side to consider - nuclear power stations are expensive. Very expensive. For nations such as ours and China, with plentiful coal supplies, coal-powered energy is the more cost effective option. It would take something like a carbon tax or trading program to make nuclear seem like a reasonable option, particularly to any government that is values the economy over the environment.

[Vaniver]

There's also an economic side to consider - nuclear power stations are expensive. Very expensive.

I was under the impression that nuclear ends up being cheaper in the long run (as building the plant is the primary expense), but takes something on the order of a decade to pay off. A tax would just tilt things in nuclear's favor even more.

That said, I would imagine that the upfront cost on investment in nuclear is significantly less than the upfront cost on investment in solar (especially if you factor in the time it'll take for solar to become economical into the upfront cost).

[Hawknc]

Agreed, which is why I doubt solar will be a base load provider, at least in the next couple of decades. Unfortunately most of the cleaner options (solar, nuclear, carbon sequestration) have a very large capital cost, and it annoys me that governments such as mine don't see past that to the longer-term savings.

[Yakk]

Yeah, uranium mining pollutes. But look at the ecological impact per kilowatt-hour. As well, any projections that we're going to run out of uranium soon are laughable.

There is enough ZJ of Uranium out there to power the entire world at modern developed nation power consumption levels using current technology for about 800 years.

There are only enough mines open now to power the entire world energy needs world at current power usage levels for about 30 years.

I ask you, are you the kind of person who is going to build a society dependent on a resource that will run out in less than 1000 years?

And do you really think that if the world started building more nuclear reactors, we would actually open up more mines?

...

Think of our great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren! (estimated) If they never develop any more advances in energy production, they will have to find new sources of uranium!

Short term solutions are not the fix.

[ZeroSum]

full of win

You, sir, win one internets. Unfortunately, I think of long term solutions, so it will take 418265186 years for you to collect it.

[mosc]

There's also an economic side to consider - nuclear power stations are expensive. Very expensive. For nations such as ours and China, with plentiful coal supplies, coal-powered energy is the more cost effective option. It would take something like a carbon tax or trading program to make nuclear seem like a reasonable option, particularly to any government that is values the economy over the environment.

It's an issue of upfront cost vs costs over the life of the plant. Nuclear is more expensive to build yes but the fuel cost is much much cheaper. I've seen it quoted at under 10 years of operation for the pant to pay for itself let alone make up the difference in cost between it and a coal plant...

[Gunfingers]

Okay, i'm one of the people who are fairly ignorant of this science. I won't say i'm closed minded to it, but i'm not going to claim i'm all for it yet either. I have put together some questions that i think need to be answered in benefit of Nuclear power in order to demonstrate that it is best. I understand some of these have already been answered, i'm just looking for them in convenient format.

1) How safe is nuclear power compared to the current solution? How can things like Chernobyl and Three-Mile-Island be prevented? What are the odds of failure, and the effect of failure if it does happen compared to the current solution? Can extreme circumstances (like the earthquake in Japan) be prevented?

2) What is its everyday effect on the surrounding area? Is there a radiation risk to the nearby community? To the employees?

3) What is the environmental impact? Is the fuel difficult to obtain? Does obtaining the fuel damage natural resources? What biproducts are produced, physical, liquid, gaseous, or otherwise? How can they be disposed of?

4) The big one: What is the cost of replacing current infrastructure with this? How will it impact current power users? What is the overall cost, and how long would it take for any benefits to outweigh that cost?

[Vaniver]

How safe is nuclear power compared to the current solution?

There is an infinitessimally small chance of catastrophe that will claim human lives. The storage of radioactive material is easy, safe, and fairly cheap. The amount of pollution prevented by switching to fission can save an untold number of lives (I believe the number of air-pollution-related deaths in China hit a million per year fairly recently; maybe I'm just remembering projections for the future).

How can things like Chernobyl and Three-Mile-Island be prevented?

Chernobyl was Soviet safety engineering. End of story.

Three Mile Island was human error. Clearly we need to shut off the automatic, redundant cooling system. Human and mechanical error cannot be prevented; they can only be minimized. There have been no significant accidents since Three Mile Island; that's a good track record, but we don't know how long it will be until the next one. I would put the estimate at decades, but I'm not an actuary.

2) What is its everyday effect on the surrounding area? Is there a radiation risk to the nearby community? To the employees?

For modern designs, there is no serious, significant effect (other than slight warming of some water, which can disrupt local ecosystems). The radiation risk is heavily monitored to insure safety; you're actually safer, radiation-wise, near a monitored, clean fission plant than you are near an unmonitored coal plant (That's just talking radiation; when you factor in ash, fission is unbelievably cleaner/safer). The amount of radiation absorbed in a week of working in a plant is comparable to one cross-country flight (this is from fuzzy memory, so take with a grain of salt).

What is the environmental impact?

The amount of pollution caused by uranium mining is minimal. The amount of pollution caused by constructing and decommissioning fission plants is minimal. The amount of pollution caused by operating the plants is minimal, but can seriously alter local ecosystems (generally, it'll just make them warmer instead of destroy them).

Is the fuel difficult to obtain? Does obtaining the fuel damage natural resources?

The fuel is difficult to obtain in the sense that it is radioactive. That only presents a few engineering concerns and invalidates some methods, but the cost of fuel is nearly a non-issue when it comes to discussing fission. Mining deaths will occur, because mining is dangerous; that said, the amount of mining will be astronomically lower than the amount of coal mining happening, and thus it will be safer overall.

The big one: What is the cost of replacing current infrastructure with this? How will it impact current power users? What is the overall cost, and how long would it take for any benefits to outweigh that cost?

The cost would probably be in the billions (for the US). It would probably take around a decade to pay off, not counting environmental gains.

[TheTankengine]

SMOKE!

ZOMG bad chemicalz

I would normally delete this comment, but I'll let it stand because this is basically what most people think about the topic. Somehow water vapor becomes "cancer-smoke of death".

OK, I'm a power engineer so I need to comment on this. Look at this picture, what do you see?

[img]

Looks like some of those nasty polluting towers from a nuclear station, doesn't it. Guess what though? It's NOT A NUCLEAR STATION! It's a coal station. See, ANY large power plant (save a hydro station) will have a cooling tower or two like these, regardless of what it uses to generate heated water.

The difference between a nuclear and a coal station is only in the source of the steam. In fact, when nuclear went out of fashion in the US, many plants converted their plants to fire coal.

Lets go back to the cooling towers for a second here. They are used to cool water. They are NOT exhaust gasses.

That was my point, actually. Also notice that I did not say it was a nuclear reactor, so please stop trying to "correct" me when you are merely putting words in my mouth, then saying that they are wrong.

[mosc]

1) Hard to answer exactly as you'd expect. TMI was never proven to emit ANY radiation though, the only real nuclear disaster was chernobyl. Personally, I think the likelihood of that kind of accident is impossible. The number of safety mechanisms they had ignored and bad processes they were using was staggering. TMI was just a over dramatized "close call". Even since then, things have gotten a lot better. Computers have come a long way since the 70s.

2) Zero. Zilch. Nada. 10x (or much more) less than a coal plant. Hold a giger counter at a nuclear plant and it'll be nil. Hold it at a coal plant's smoke stack and it'll scare the hell out of you. There is some small risk when changing rods but this is routine and at that point the reaction is off. You're just dealing with the issues of uranium itself, nothing more.

3) the fuel is easy to obtain. There is no emissions other than water vapor. Coal is much more invasive to obtain and you need MUCH more of it to make the same power. The byproducts are depleted uranium (radio active) and water vapor. There are concerns with bacteria developing in the hot, moist, cooling towers but that's nothing unique to nuclear (big coal/gas plants have the same cooling towers). The best solution for depleted uranium is to put it back in the earth where it came from. The issue with this is mostly transportation. People are terrified about it passing through their town on a freeway or railway on it's way to disposal. This amuses me greatly because they have no problem with the nuclear weapons the military carts through there whenever they feel like it. After all, we're talking about DEPLETED uranium here. Even if it fell out, it's not the most dangerous stuff we've got laying around...

4) Nuclear power plants pay for themselves in about 10 years and last for much longer. They're extremely economically viable, especially as environmental laws tighten making coal less profitable. I don't understand what you're getting at about replacing current infastructure. Besides allowing some coal plants that should have closed years ago to become non-essential and close, I fail to see it replacing anything. Would take most of our resources to keep up with demand growth! Our per capita power consumption is the highest on the globe.

This issue isn't about money. Purely economically, nuclear would make up ~75% of our power. You'd use what hydro you could which would be somewhat significant and you'd need some fossil fuel units for peak load times of year and for blackstart. Would take decades to get there, not that we ever would!