Nuclear energy

[Gelsamel]

Does Greenpeace do anything pro-environment any more or is it all anti-government/big-business?

[jareturns]

Does Greenpeace do anything pro-environment any more or is it all anti-government/big-business?

I know, I find it a bit bewildering really, that they claim that they want to stop climate change and be pro-environment, yet are completely against nuclear power which is the most effective way of reducing our emissions.

[Gelsamel]

And they seem to be anti-government/big-business to the point where they're effectively anti human life. Take a look at their staunch opposition to GE crops which could save countless lives in developing countries.

[General Meevious]

Does Greenpeace do anything pro-environment any more or is it all anti-government/big-business?

They do plenty. Perhaps you don't hear about it because government is so anti-environment that the conflict between the two is such a large focus.

And they seem to be anti-government/big-business to the point where they're effectively anti human life. Take a look at their staunch opposition to GE crops which could save countless lives in developing countries.

Do you have ANY idea how much damage GM crops have done to third world countries in the past? A considerable proportion of 3rd world debt is due to big companies in the 70s moving in to Africa with drought resistant crops to "help combat starvation". The locals started growing the crops and soon became dependant as they let their old crops die out. The companies then decided to seek reward for their "charity" and charged the people now using their patented crops, the natives had no means of paying and no means of giving up the crops, pushing them continually further into poverty. Sure GM crops are great in some cases, but corporate greed and the flaws of the patenting system are huge hindrances to moving in that direction.

On a technicality. The government originally promised a 'full public consultation', but greenpeace took them to court on the claim that the government-issued paper didn't enclose every single detail. The judge ruled in greenpeace's favour, forcing the government to go back to the drawing board and start the whole review again. Really, it was just a strategy on greenpeace's behalf to stall the implementation of replacing our existing nuclear power plants which will soon expire and add some extra ones to reduce our dependency on foreign gas. Nevertheless, it was actually the government's fault because they were elected in 2005, with their manifesto pledging that they would create a new generation of power plants. So really, they didn't even need to promise a 'full public consultation' in the first place!

Heh, I wish that sort of thing happened more often in this part of the world... *cough* pulp mill. :/

Well I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread (there is a lot so probably not). But most of that is covered. Here is a small summary (of the stuff I've read)

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, I skimmed it and replied to the last post.

Plants back then (with the exception of chernobyl) were incapable of doing Chernobyl. It was badly built with not much safety and it melted down because the idiots decided to fuck around with the core. It wasn't an accident, it was a full on act of stupidity.

Nah, Chernobyl was fine for it's time, but plants at that time were a lot more susceptible to human error. I'm certainly not arguing that anything like that could happen again, but I think after such an event, it's difficult to make people feel safe around what in the opinion of the general public is essentially the same; a nuclear power plant.

The uranium used in power plants is not weapons grade.

Making it weapons grade is not as difficult a process as some people make it out to be. We pulled it off in the 40s with relatively no idea what we were doing, "terrorist organizations" would no doubt be able to make weapons from plant grade uranium if they put their mind to it. It's stupid to rule that out and even if once they obtained some uranium they were unable to turn it into a bomb, turning it into a dirty bomb requires practically no effort.

Probably the biggest problem of all - but there are MANY storage solutions.

Many solutions, but no good solutions.

No. The Mining Uranium + Nuclear Power Generation is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH less polluting then Coal Mining + Coal Power Plant. In fact, I think it emits less carbon than Wind (might be wrong, might be only less then Wind if you minus the mining).

yeah, you are DEFINITELY thinking of the power plant minus the mining and even that is frankly spin. A huge amount of soil has to be turned over to get a small amount of uranium and a huge amount of uranium is required to keep a plant running. If mining machinery were solar powered perhaps nuclear would be more viable.

I doubt finding employees will be a problem, even if it is that's just a problem with the public perception which needs to be changed. Nuclear Plants pay themselves off with power generation pretty well.

Isn't it supposed to take five years for the construction energy to be payed off? Anyway, yes, nuclear energy is very efficient matter-wise but raw materials are not the only things of value in this world.

Not as finite as you think, all those estimate for how much Uranium can sustain us for are ONLY taking in consideration current and existing uranium mines. If demand for Power Generation-Grade Uranium increases then we'll open more mines and LOOK for more possible mine locations. At the moment we're not.

Oh yes as finite as I think. Finite is finite. I didn't claim that there was a minute amount of it on the planet, merely that there is a limited amount, rendering it inviable in the long term. On a side note, we can see roughly the magnitude and position of all our uranium reserves. The fact that it is highly radioactive makes it a lot easier to track than most common minerals.

[Gelsamel]

Does Greenpeace do anything pro-environment any more or is it all anti-government/big-business?

They do plenty. Perhaps you don't hear about it because government is so anti-environment that the conflict between the two is such a large focus.

Well I'd like to learn of some stuff they've done if this is true, perhaps my view of them is colored. Have you got any links to some major pro-environment things they've gotten involved in that couldn't be construed as anti government/big-business?

Do you have ANY idea how much damage GM crops have done to third world countries in the past? A considerable proportion of 3rd world debt is due to big companies in the 70s moving in to Africa with drought resistant crops to "help combat starvation". The locals started growing the crops and soon became dependant as they let their old crops die out. The companies then decided to seek reward for their "charity" and charged the people now using their patented crops, the natives had no means of paying and no means of giving up the crops, pushing them continually further into poverty. Sure GM crops are great in some cases, but corporate greed and the flaws of the patenting system are huge hindrances to moving in that direction.

I'd like to see a source on that - I am surprised I hadn't heard of this before.

Other then that, I was referring to greenpeace and similar "eco" groups telling 3rd world countries that GM crops were poisonous and would kill you so that they would turn down free GM crops from the US government (they were successful by the way).

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, I skimmed it and replied to the last post.

I've read most of the start, but not the latter stuff - so don't feel bad .

Nah, Chernobyl was fine for it's time, but plants at that time were a lot more susceptible to human error.

Not really... Chernobyl was poorly designed in comparison to other reactors (see 3 mile island, which NOONE died because of the safety measure, and this accident happened 7 years before Chernobyl). That and the technicians were stupid.

I'm certainly not arguing that anything like that could happen again, but I think after such an event, it's difficult to make people feel safe around what in the opinion of the general public is essentially the same; a nuclear power plant.

Of course it's difficult, but they're not looking at the full picture. More people have and will die (proportionally) from wind, coal, oil, gas then nuclear.

Making it weapons grade is not as difficult a process as some people make it out to be.

Reactor grade uranium is 3-5% or so fissile material and weapons grade is in the high 90s. Believe me, it's not easy.

It's stupid to rule that out and even if once they obtained some uranium they were unable to turn it into a bomb, turning it into a dirty bomb requires practically no effort.

Of course, but if they "wanted to" they could do it now, since France runs on 80%+ nuclear power, and other countries are in the high 60-70s.

A huge amount of soil has to be turned over to get a small amount of uranium

I'd like to see a source on that.

and a huge amount of uranium is required to keep a plant running.

Not really, see breeder reactors which can reuse upto 98% of the fuel. Also, think about how much energy nuclear power makes. Uranium to Useable Energy conversion is way high, meaning that a little goes a long way.

Isn't it supposed to take five years for the construction energy to be payed off?

I imagine the figures are different for different economies. But it doesn't take very long (5 years isn't very long, at least I don't think).

Oh yes as finite as I think. Finite is finite. I didn't claim that there was a minute amount of it on the planet, merely that there is a limited amount, rendering it inviable in the long term. On a side note, we can see roughly the magnitude and position of all our uranium reserves. The fact that it is highly radioactive makes it a lot easier to track than most common minerals.

What I meant by "not as finite as you think" is when you claim that it is only a "short term" solution. It really depends on your definition of short term.

If your definition is "not indefinite" then sure. But nuclear can last for a VERY VERY VERY long time. At least as long enough to make solar extremely viable and efficient.

[General Meevious]

Well I'd like to learn of some stuff they've done if this is true, perhaps my view of them is colored. Have you got any links to some major pro-environment things they've gotten involved in that couldn't be construed as anti government/big-business?

Haha, everything is bound to be against the ideals of some big business. Amazon deforestation, whaling and greenhouse emissions are all a form of income for certain big businesses and to some extent certain governments, that doesn't make them right.

I'd like to see a source on that - I am surprised I hadn't heard of this before.

Other then that, I was referring to greenpeace and similar "eco" groups telling 3rd world countries that GM crops were poisonous and would kill you so that they would turn down free GM crops from the US government (they were successful by the way).

Yeah, look up 3rd world debt in Africa or something if you're genuinely interested, I've learned about it in classes so I can't give you a link off the top of my head. It's kinda off topic, but I agree, aside from the greed problems of big business and as long as it does not endanger the planet's natural life, GM is for the better.

Not really... Chernobyl was poorly designed in comparison to other reactors (see 3 mile island, which NOONE died because of the safety measure, and this accident happened 7 years before Chernobyl). That and the technicians were stupid.

the project only began two years after 3 mile island and to compare the two is not really an accurate rendition of whether one was below par for the time looking at all power stations active when the accident occurred. The 3 mile island was technologically ahead, this does not mean Chernobyl was behind.

Of course it's difficult, but they're not looking at the full picture. More people have and will die (proportionally) from wind, coal, oil, gas then nuclear.

you're seriously grouping wind power with fossil fuels? Ok matey, tell me how many deaths have occurred directly as a result of wind power? Excluding wind, the argument you are putting forward is that nuclear energy is better than fossil fuel generated energy and that's not an argument I'm interested in. It's not a question of which of two stupid ideas is stupidest, it's a question of which of all the ideas is best renewable energy generation is part of this argument.

Reactor grade uranium is 3-5% or so fissile material and weapons grade is in the high 90s. Believe me, it's not easy.

You've tried to enrich uranium? Just because the percentage difference is large, doesn't mean the process is difficult, certainly not too difficult to completely rule out.

I'd like to see a source on that.

You would? You really don't believe my completely vague statement? Again, if you're so darn interested, look for a source yourself, but before you do, I would like to point out the hilarity I am encountering in your refusal to believe that the mass of non-uranium tilled in a uranium mine is substantially greater than the amount of uranium. It doesn't come in ayers rock size hunks.

Not really, see breeder reactors which can reuse upto 98% of the fuel. Also, think about how much energy nuclear power makes. Uranium to Useable Energy conversion is way high, meaning that a little goes a long way.

Firstly, "up to 98% of the fuel" is the first time around, that's not counting fuel that's already been reused. Secondly, the amount of uranium used at any one time is fairly large as I understand it. Thirdly, any loss is a loss, it's a finite resource and even if it takes a million years (which it won't by any means), it will run out eventually. There will be sunlight, wind and water movement on this earth as long as humans at least.

I imagine the figures are different for different economies. But it doesn't take very long (5 years isn't very long, at least I don't think).

Economies don't have anything to do with it, we're talking energy usage.

What I meant by "not as finite as you think" is when you claim that it is only a "short term" solution. It really depends on your definition of short term.

If your definition is "not indefinite" then sure. But nuclear can last for a VERY VERY VERY long time. At least as long enough to make solar extremely viable and efficient.

My definition of short term is perhaps a little long.. though your definition of short term can't be that short given your opinion of the data that it will take five years for a nuclear power plant to pay for its self energy-wise. I don't think making solar power cost affective is really an excuse to put it off, for a start, most great advances are brought about by competition and we're talking in dollars when the health of the planet is at stake? Madness I tells ye!

[Gelsamel]

Haha, everything is bound to be against the ideals of some big business. Amazon deforestation, whaling and greenhouse emissions are all a form of income for certain big businesses and to some extent certain governments, that doesn't make them right.

Perhaps many, but there has to be some environmental issues that they've been on which have nothing to do with govnerments/business (and I mean new greenpeace, ie. after Patrick Moore left). Say something major in the area of conservation? Where -bad- things weren't happening, but no good things were? If you know what I mean.

Yeah, look up 3rd world debt in Africa or something if you're genuinely interested, I've learned about it in classes so I can't give you a link off the top of my head. It's kinda off topic, but I agree, aside from the greed problems of big business and as long as it does not endanger the planet's natural life, GM is for the better.

Of course I'm genuinely interested.

Did a bit of searching and can't really find anything on it - (though I gotta goto sleep soon, so I didn't spend too much time).

the project only began two years after 3 mile island and to compare the two is not really an accurate rendition of whether one was below par for the time looking at all power stations active when the accident occurred. The 3 mile island was technologically ahead, this does not mean Chernobyl was behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_ ... e_disaster

Either the design was flawed or the people were flawed. This should not have occurred even with technology back then.

you're seriously grouping wind power with fossil fuels? Ok matey, tell me how many deaths have occurred directly as a result of wind power?

Look back one page and read the reports posted about Wind vs Nuclear death rates.

You've tried to enrich uranium? Just because the percentage difference is large, doesn't mean the process is difficult, certainly not too difficult to completely rule out.

From Wikipedia:
The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass required rapidly increases. However, judicious use of implosion and neutron reflectors can enable construction of a weapon from a quantity of uranium below the usual critical mass for its level of enrichment, though this would likely only be possible in a country which already had extensive experience in developing nuclear weapons. The presence of too much of the 238U isotope inhibits the runaway nuclear chain reaction that is responsible for the weapon's power. The critical mass for 85% of highly enriched uranium, for a bare sphere at normal density, is about 50 kilograms.

HEU is also used in fast neutron reactors as well as in naval reactors, where it contains at least 50% 235U, but typically does not exceed 90%. The Fermi-1 commercial fast reactor prototype used HEU with 26.5% 235U.

So first off, they will need A LOT. I believe even 98% (off the top of my head this is) needs about 20kgs. 20% would need a ridiculous amount, and more often then not could easily fail.

Next up another quote from wiki:
Isotope separation is a difficult and energy intensive activity. Enriching uranium is difficult because the two isotopes have identical chemical properties, and are very similar in weight: 235U is only 1.26% lighter than 238U.

You would? You really don't believe my completely vague statement? Again, if you're so darn interested, look for a source yourself,

You're the one making the claim, I'm not going to do your research for you. I want to see a source to see if what you're saying is true or not. Because otherwise it's mere guessing.

but before you do, I would like to point out the hilarity I am encountering in your refusal to believe that the mass of non-uranium tilled in a uranium mine is substantially greater than the amount of uranium. It doesn't come in ayers rock size hunks.

This hilarity you're experiencing has no baring on the argument. Your claim is unsourced. And the amount of non-uranium they get has nothing to do with it, only the amount of useable uranium they get matters, and how quickly they get it.

Firstly, "up to 98% of the fuel" is the first time around, that's not counting fuel that's already been reused.

Not sure what you mean here... breeder reactors make more fissile material while they use up their fuel, fast breeder reactors can make MORE fissile material then they use up.

Economies don't have anything to do with it, we're talking energy usage.

You're talking about the energy put into actually building the plant? That is a very dubious claim, especially without sources.

As for how long nuclear can last:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm
Summarized:
# Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
# Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use
# Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived.

It also says ". It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea."

http://www.nea.fr/html/pub/newsletter/2 ... ources.pdf
Says that Nuclear can easily last thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (at 1998 useage, but it useage would have to increase dramatically to take it under the thousands) depending on the technology used. Though they suggest major work into researching more efficient fuel and mining methods.

I don't think making solar power cost affective is really an excuse to put it off, for a start, most great advances are brought about by competition and we're talking in dollars when the health of the planet is at stake? Madness I tells ye!

We don't have to stop making solar efficient, however we can utilize clean and powerful nuclear energy while we wait.

[MotorToad]

Perhaps because nuclear energy poses many big problems.

[...]

.Lastly, but most importantly in my humble opinion, Uranium is quite, quite finite. Solar, wind and hydro energy are better long term solutions however you look at it. Nuclear power as a long term solution is a joke.

Solar: hugely expensive, massive space requirements, and clouds. Oh, and night has an effect.

Wind: ditto, ditto, *LOUD* (have you ever been near one of those windmills? YIKES!), and calm days.

Hydro: build a dam in my backyard? HELL NO! You'll kill the fish, destroy some sort of clam/bear/flower/bumblebee's natural habitat, have to relocate population, etc.

There simply isn't a source of power that doesn't have an entire battalion of green"peace" idiots
trying to remove it from civilization. Wind and solar are all good, other than you can't get enough out of them to power large regions like the present system requires, and they're not stable enough. The controls equipment needed to balance a grid of 30,000 or so small wind/solar farms to power the entire nation would require something like half again the cost of the new wind/solar equipment just to have the reliability of power that they have in Cuba or Afghanistan. If it's even possible, given the variation in output that those suffer.

[Yakk]

yeah, you are DEFINITELY thinking of the power plant minus the mining and even that is frankly spin. A huge amount of soil has to be turned over to get a small amount of uranium and a huge amount of uranium is required to keep a plant running. If mining machinery were solar powered perhaps nuclear would be more viable.

Nuclear power plants do not require a "huge" amount of uranium -- uranium is an amazingly dense power source. It is still an industiral level production chain. Compared to coal, oil, iron, and other industiral level mines, it is exceedingly tiny.

you're seriously grouping wind power with fossil fuels? Ok matey, tell me how many deaths have occurred directly as a result of wind power? Excluding wind, the argument you are putting forward is that nuclear energy is better than fossil fuel generated energy and that's not an argument I'm interested in. It's not a question of which of two stupid ideas is stupidest, it's a question of which of all the ideas is best renewable energy generation is part of this argument.

That means very few mines, and very little mining, per terrawatt hour produced.

Wind power is very distributed. On a per terrawatt hour produced, wind power is very fatal. If you include every death from every bit of ore mining, every construction accident, and every nuclear event including chernoble, you end up with nuclear power being safer than wind power.

You've tried to enrich uranium? Just because the percentage difference is large, doesn't mean the process is difficult, certainly not too difficult to completely rule out.

Enriching based on isotope is hard. You need fun stuff like uranium hexafloride, a ridiculously toxic and corrosive gas, and then repeatedly put it through a high-G centrifuge and pull out the heavier gas molecules.

We are not talking cottage-industry chemistry.

Note that isolating plutonium is easier than uranium.

Firstly, "up to 98% of the fuel" is the first time around, that's not counting fuel that's already been reused. Secondly, the amount of uranium used at any one time is fairly large as I understand it. Thirdly, any loss is a loss, it's a finite resource and even if it takes a million years (which it won't by any means), it will run out eventually. There will be sunlight, wind and water movement on this earth as long as humans at least.

Then it buys us a million years to figure out fusion or better technologies for producing energy. What is so horrid about finding a non-renewable resource and consuming it? Why is it better to waste the non-renewable resource by not using it?

... (other poster)

Not sure what you mean here... breeder reactors make more fissile material while they use up their fuel, fast breeder reactors can make MORE fissile material then they use up.

Breeder reactors eventually do run out of power from a given source of fuel. Enthropy wins in the end.

...

Look, fission power isn't "the final solution". But between eventual space technology (assuming we keep up a high-energy density and high-wealth civilization, we'll exploit it), fusion (we know it works -- look at the sun!), and improvements to energy storage, it is a damn good option.

Wind/Solar require either brownouts at random times, a high-marginal-cost alternative power generation system, or massive energy storage for them to work. And they are extremely low density, high initial costs, and require so much new infrastructure that they slaughter a huge number of workers and miners to produce the raw materials. Hydro requires the earth to help out with good geological nooks and crannies for us to store water -- and the amount of energy storage is not all that much, because of the relative weakness of gravity. (work out how much easily accessed chemical energy is stored in 1 kg of gas compared to the gravitational potential of 1 kg of water lifted 10 km above the earth's surface).

Edit: changed "low marginal cost" to "high marginal cost": if you have an alternative low marginal cost power source, you might as well not build wind/solar. The current standard "high marginal cost" power sources are fossil fuel based, such as natural gas power plants (cheap to build, expensive to fuel, but great for dealing with variable power consumption and variable power production).

[Akula]

In the meantime, there is this idiocy.Musicians deliver 'no nukes' petition

As someone said eariler, the fear of nuclear power has mostly been engineered through ridiculous propaganda tactics. And so it continues.

Of course, I've always been bothered with the fact that anyone takes the opinions of actors and musicians seriously. Most of them are about as informed as a tree stump.

[Gelsamel]

Not sure what you mean here... breeder reactors make more fissile material while they use up their fuel, fast breeder reactors can make MORE fissile material then they use up.

Breeder reactors eventually do run out of power from a given source of fuel. Enthropy wins in the end.

No doubt, I just didn't get what he was explaining. I'm just noting that fuel is abundant and easy to mine and produce for reactors.

[Prole]

Fusion will become another viable option in another 100 years or so.

The first energy producing plant is already on the way (ITER)

though its Q factor will be quite low.

After this DEMO will be the first electricity supplying fusion power plant.

Its probably closer than people think,

Given that its plans are already in the pipeline and its been studied to death, i'd say its more likely than large scale solar harnessing (Space sails and such).

Solar will probably just become more integrated on a smaller scale.

Designed into houses etc, and farms in deserts.

[Yakk]

So, to be clear:

Solar/Wind requires huge amounts of infrastructure. This infrastructure requires mass raping of the environment in order to produce that much steel, concrete, wires and rare earth materials.

The volume of rape required to build and operate a nuclear power plant is small, because the plant is relatively small per terrawatt produced, and the fuel is relatively compact per terrawatt hour produced.

Due to the massive amount of construction work and repair that a wind farm requires, per terrawatt hour it has proven far more dangerous than nuclear power in terms of human lives lost. Operating a huge windmill is dangerous, and people die. Simply take the total number of terrawatt hours produced by nuclear, and divide by the number of people killed by it. Repeat for wind farms. Nuclear power comes out far ahead -- I read someone who ran the numbers, and it was by at least an order of magnitude if not more.

While mining uranium ore does do damage to the environment, so does mining steel, copper, and concrete (or, more accurately, the raw materials for the above). And it takes huge massive numbers of solar or wind power converters to match, at peak, the output of a single nuclear plant -- and on top of that, because the solar/wind cannot produce a reliable stream, you still need to build either high-density storage mechanisms (which are bulky, expensive, and damage the environment), or have an entire redundant power system built that can take up the slack when the wind dies or the sun goes behind a cloud or a planet (usually that redundant power system is hydrocarbon based).

It is true that nuclear power has somewhat similar problems -- because the fuel for a nuclear plant is so cheap, most of the costs is from the capacity of the plant. And nuclear plants have problems rapidly changing their power output in response to demand. So you end up with a similar, but not identical, problem in aligning power supply with power demand.

One plan is to use excess nuclear produced electrical and heat power as a way of replacing the current hydrocarbon automotive fuel industry. You can get decent efficiencies doing "hot H2 production" from water, which can be stored and used to fuel cars. More simply, you can have overnight plug-in cars, who charge themselves up during the off-peak times when electricity is cheap. These can generate somewhat predictable "smoothing out" of the demand curve.

You will still need some rapid-response-to-demand power systems (like CH4 plants: aka natural gas) which are cheap-capacity expensive-fuel on-demand production to match production to demand. Or maybe you can use some of that H2 to smooth things out.

The fundamental difference is that wind/solar has it's power production change randomly, and sometimes be unable to match demand for extended periods of time: it is the flux in the supply that is the problem with solar/wind -- while nuclear wants to produce a steady amount of power, and it is the flux in the demand that causes the problem. Some similar solutions can be used (produce H2, power cars), but understanding the change in demand on a daily cycle is easier for us to predict than the weather is (which determines the change in supply of solar/wind).

I am not a professional in the power industry, so I could be on crack. But I have thought about this problem.

It would be great if wind/solar could solve the power problem -- but to me, it looks unreliable, inefficient, and environmentally destructive compared to alternatives.

[zenten]

Now, there can be times when Wind and Solar are good (and even Hydro, as much as building new dams pissed me off). They just are niche situations however, and can't replace coal on a large scale.

[Umlaut]

Reactor grade uranium is 3-5% or so fissile material and weapons grade is in the high 90s. Believe me, it's not easy.

You've tried to enrich uranium? Just because the percentage difference is large, doesn't mean the process is difficult, certainly not too difficult to completely rule out.

Iran isn't having any problems, right? A much more significant risk is nuclear material being refined by third world governments and sold to terrorists, and that has nothing to do with increasing nuclear energy usage is the west.

[Yakk]

Reactor grade uranium is 3-5% or so fissile material and weapons grade is in the high 90s. Believe me, it's not easy.

You've tried to enrich uranium? Just because the percentage difference is large, doesn't mean the process is difficult, certainly not too difficult to completely rule out.

Iran isn't having any problems, right? A much more significant risk is nuclear material being refined by third world governments and sold to terrorists, and that has nothing to do with increasing nuclear energy usage is the west.

But, Iran is having problems: note that it doesn't have a bomb.

Also note that NK's bomb was a fizzle, and that I think it was plutonium based.

On top of that, if you want to raise someone up to anywhere close to modern western standards of living, they will have the resources to build nuclear bombs and other scary weapons.

[Gelsamel]

Lets hope raising living standards brings peace as well...

[mosc]

Solar/Wind requires huge amounts of infrastructure. This infrastructure requires mass raping of the environment in order to produce that much steel, concrete, wires and rare earth materials.

The volume of rape required to build and operate a nuclear power plant is small, because the plant is relatively small per terrawatt produced, and the fuel is relatively compact per terrawatt hour produced.

Nobody in their right mind is proposing wind and solar as the majority of power production for the next 50 years. Most of the plants we're talking about don't have much longer lifespans than that anyway. No, the option is not nuclear or wind/solar, it's nuclear or more coal/gas and with those two, mining uranium looks as environmentally friendly as cleaning the oil off baby penguins. People seem to rationalize power plants by thinking too long term. They don't last forever... regardless of the technology used. What we're building now doesn't have to last forever, or even 1000+ years, it has to last for the useful life of the plant.

It is true that nuclear power has somewhat similar problems -- because the fuel for a nuclear plant is so cheap, most of the costs is from the capacity of the plant. And nuclear plants have problems rapidly changing their power output in response to demand. So you end up with a similar, but not identical, problem in aligning power supply with power demand.

One plan is to use excess nuclear produced electrical and heat power as a way of replacing the current hydrocarbon automotive fuel industry. You can get decent efficiencies doing "hot H2 production" from water, which can be stored and used to fuel cars. More simply, you can have overnight plug-in cars, who charge themselves up during the off-peak times when electricity is cheap. These can generate somewhat predictable "smoothing out" of the demand curve.

Nuclear runs 24/7. The idea of having nuclear follow the load curve is kind of naive. Even if we DOUBLED the number of plants in the US, they would still run 24/7. There is no issue with energy storage. If you have more nuclear plants, you'll just see us burning less coal and gas. One of the reasons we have an interconnection is we can move power from an area than doesn't need it to one that does. The valley isn't low enough to worry about that unless we drastically changed the capabilities of our power providers. That's not going to happen in the next few decades, regardless of how friendly to nuclear things get. You may have to worry about this in 100 years if you built all the nuclear plants you could... I doubt even then.

You will still need some rapid-response-to-demand power systems (like CH4 plants: aka natural gas) which are cheap-capacity expensive-fuel on-demand production to match production to demand. Or maybe you can use some of that H2 to smooth things out.

Gas and oil are the traditional fast responders yes but there is also a large one people forget about: Hydro. I don't have the exact percentages but I'd imagine 10-15% of our grid is powered by water. It's quick to respond (both on and off) and in some cases can even provide large load for you (see Bath County Hydro).

[Vaniver]

Nuclear power comes out far ahead -- I read someone who ran the numbers, and it was by at least an order of magnitude if not more.

I believe the numbers were earlier in this thread. They were similar, if you assume Chernobyl is normal. If you don't, nuclear was less by three orders of magnitude.

[zenten]

Solar/Wind requires huge amounts of infrastructure. This infrastructure requires mass raping of the environment in order to produce that much steel, concrete, wires and rare earth materials.

The volume of rape required to build and operate a nuclear power plant is small, because the plant is relatively small per terrawatt produced, and the fuel is relatively compact per terrawatt hour produced.

Nobody in their right mind is proposing wind and solar as the majority of power production for the next 50 years. Most of the plants we're talking about don't have much longer lifespans than that anyway. No, the option is not nuclear or wind/solar, it's nuclear or more coal/gas and with those two, mining uranium looks as environmentally friendly as cleaning the oil off baby penguins. People seem to rationalize power plants by thinking too long term. They don't last forever... regardless of the technology used. What we're building now doesn't have to last forever, or even 1000+ years, it has to last for the useful life of the plant.

Regardless of their sanity, many people in this thread are proposing wind and solar, either right now or in the very near future.

And no, we don't need a solution for the life of the planet at this moment. We need something which won't totally screw over the planet, but that just means getting away from combustion right now.

[mosc]

Wind and solar are already heavily heavily subsidized by federal and local governments. We already have the progress in those directions to produce more than what is economically reasonable. Regardless of how much more you want to pay for your taxes and power bill to promote a cleaner world, there is a limit to how much and how fast these technologies can put out. You're not going to see a large percentage of the grid come from these in your lifetime. We're already spending more money than is reasonable anyway.

US power demand continues to grow and grow and grow. In some places it's over 10% per year (I think the national average is more like 5%). People already complain with the higher price of oil and gas that their electricity costs too much. The economic reality is you're going to see lots and lots more dirty coal unless you relax about nuclear.

[Akula]

Fusion will become another viable option in another 100 years or so.

The first energy producing plant is already on the way (ITER)

though its Q factor will be quite low.

After this DEMO will be the first electricity supplying fusion power plant.

Its probably closer than people think,

Given that its plans are already in the pipeline and its been studied to death, i'd say its more likely than large scale solar harnessing (Space sails and such).

Solar will probably just become more integrated on a smaller scale.

Designed into houses etc, and farms in deserts.

Yeah... solar won't be very practical me thinks. Well, it will technically, it would be the ultimate power source once we build ourselves a Dyson Sphere. But now we're just getting ahead of ourselves

[Minerva]

.Nuclear meltdown is still a big fear, though plants being designed these days are supposedly incapable of doing a Chernobyl.

That's not just a supposition, it's physical law.

Even when a meltdown occurs, at a moderately old Western nuclear power reactor - Three Mile Island Unit 2 - it does not hurt or kill anybody!

.The idea that when dealing with highly radioactive material, there is always a chance it will fall into the wrong hands, making repeated uranium deliveries to a plant is an invitation to be hijacked and robbed.

So, then, what are the wrong hands going to do with it?

.The half life of the substances used is many generations, people are unwilling to leave potentially quite dangerous problems to their descendants and no one wants to store the radioactive waste.

Once radioactive waste is disposed of in an appropriately designed deep geological repository, it is finished, a solved problem, and doesn't require any attention from future generations.

. Mining uranium is as about as damaging to the atmosphere as running a coal plant even now, when we still have readily high grade uranium available, in the future it will be much less sustainable both economically and environmentally to mine uranium.

Got any evidence for such claims?

.Nuclear power plants take a long time and a lot of money to build and it is relatively difficult to find enough willing employees in a power plant area, particularly as the prospect of building plants in urban areas sparks public outrage due to possible health risks with mismanagement.

Nuclear power plants in the United States are typically accepted by the surrounding communities, and looked upon favourably as major employers and contributors to local economies. Proposals for expansions to nuclear energy facilities in the US have been met with community support.

.Lastly, but most importantly in my humble opinion, Uranium is quite, quite finite. Solar, wind and hydro energy are better long term solutions however you look at it. Nuclear power as a long term solution is a joke.

There is sufficient Uranium and Thorium in the earth to supply the energy needs of an advanced civilisation for every person on earth - everyone having access to energy the way we do, in the industrialised, developed Western world, for no less than one million years, assuming it is used efficiently and not wasted, meaning Generation IV reactors, and sensible, efficient fuel cycles.

I think after such an event, it's difficult to make people feel safe around what in the opinion of the general public is essentially the same; a nuclear power plant.

The fact that some laypeople who don't understand it are not supportive of nuclear energy is not an argument against its use.

Making it weapons grade is not as difficult a process as some people make it out to be. We pulled it off in the 40s with relatively no idea what we were doing, "terrorist organizations" would no doubt be able to make weapons from plant grade uranium if they put their mind to it.

The US accomplished it in the 40s with relatively no idea what they were doing.

Relatively no idea what they were doing, 13% of the total electricity consumption in the United States, 75,000 employees, 15,000 tons of silver bullion, an essentially unlimited budget, the largest building in the world, some of the greatest physicists the world has ever known, and the engineering and construction equivalent of building the Panama canal every year for three years.

It's stupid to rule that out and even if once they obtained some uranium they were unable to turn it into a bomb, turning it into a dirty bomb requires practically no effort.

Uranium is one of the least radioactive radionuclides there is - it's a pretty crap choice for such a weapon.

yeah, you are DEFINITELY thinking of the power plant minus the mining and even that is frankly spin. A huge amount of soil has to be turned over to get a small amount of uranium and a huge amount of uranium is required to keep a plant running. If mining machinery were solar powered perhaps nuclear would be more viable.

The whole-of-life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions intensity of nuclear energy is at least comparable to wind energy, and by some studies, better. That, I believe, is what the poster is referring to.

[Yakk]

Uranium is one of the least radioactive radionuclides there is - it's a pretty crap choice for such a weapon.

It is toxic, like most heavy metals are.

The high-end waste products, after you use the fuel, are more dangerous. But they stay inside relatively fortified power plants, and are then transported rarely to a disposal site (so rarely, one could actually wait for a downswing in the global level of terror risk between transportation times!) As for attacking a power plant, attacking a hydro dam is probably a better plan for a terrorist.

The key part of nuclear fission is that the energy densities we pull out of the ore is much higher than we get from other sources. This reduces the amount of mining we have to do by orders of magnitude. And the energy density of wind and solar is so low that the mining it takes just to produce the "factories" (windmills and collectors) ends up being more than required for a uranium plant!

...

As for a shortage of raw materials, note that under-sea mining is actually starting to kick off. Many ore deposits are actually produced at the bottom of the ocean (ocean crust is denser and thiner than continental crust, so you'd expect more heavy elements). Millions of dollars are currently being spent on this, and it isn't pie in the sky: there are literally raw exposed ore forests on the bottom of the ocean that we can scoop up and use.

And yes, if we did this to the entire ocean at once it would cause ecosystem collapse: but the area of the ocean is about twice as large as the area of all of the land on Earth. There is room for a few mines down there.

[Prole]

Once radioactive waste is disposed of in an appropriately designed deep geological repository, it is finished, a solved problem, and doesn't require any attention from future generations.

Thats a bit of an ideal case i would have thought.

The words 'appropriately designed' carry a whole lot of weight in this sentence right here.

[Minerva]

Once radioactive waste is disposed of in an appropriately designed deep geological repository, it is finished, a solved problem, and doesn't require any attention from future generations.

Thats a bit of an ideal case i would have thought.

The words 'appropriately designed' carry a whole lot of weight in this sentence right here.

Well, the fission products, plutonium and other actinides created in the 16 nuclear reactors at Oklo have been successfully contained in the ground there, with no engineering involved whatsoever, for the last two billion years.

[roflwaffle]

In light of the trouble in Japan, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to build plants to more exacting standards. For instance the San Onofre plant is only about 15 miles from where my grandparents live, and while it can supposedly handle up to a 7.0, there is apparently the potential for a 7.5 in the region. It also sits about 30 feet above the coastline, so I don't think a Tsunami could cause a lot of damage to the plant, but I'm not sure what plans they have for clearing out the intake/exhaust pipes if they are clogged w/ mud/debris.

My opinion is that while newer plants like the AP1000 are designed w/ enough water in the gravity reservoir to cool the plant for a few days and fairly foolproof systems, unlike backup diesel gensets in a basement, that increasing the water reservoir size doesn't cost a whole lot compared to the potential damage, however unlikely from a natural event, and can greatly reduce potential damage to the plant. Building a plant that can structurally take a 9.0 earthquake otoh may require more substantial changes to existing design, but I don't think it's cost prohibitive. Should we hold existing plants and new construction to higher standards?

[Yakk]

The goal shouldn't be "build a plant that can survive a 9.0 quake", but rather "build a plant that, in the event of catastrophic failure, shuts down and has to be scrapped".

Ie, plants that if there is a coolant loss, the nuclear reaction stops instead of a melt-down occurring.

I believe that the Japanese plant survived the 9.0 quake quite fine, thank you -- it was the loss of on-site diesel generators that caused the problem (and the inability to fly in new generators and fuel supply in the hours that the batteries lasted).

[Azrael]

Should we hold existing plants and new construction to higher standards?

Higher standards than the 1971 GE Mark 1? A design that had the exact safety concerns that are currently playing out raised by GE Engineers in 1976? Yeah, probably. But hindsight is perfect, after all. Although for a containment vessel that was criticized as being too weak, it did survive a 9.0 earthquake. It was flooding of ancillary systems that caused the problem. The current damage to one of the containment buildings was as a result of the hydrogen explosion triggered by build ups after cooling failures. Sure, maybe the earthquake weakened it a bit. But it did hold.

Do we already require higher standards for new plants? Yes.

So the question becomes "should be retrofit older plants?" We probably should, on a case by case basis look at potential failure modes and what could be done to reasonably mitigate some of them. Like not putting the backup generators below sea level, assuming the sea walls will always be sufficient.

Ie, plants that if there is a coolant loss, the nuclear reaction stops instead of a melt-down occurring.

... but that's exactly what happened. The plants that were online automatically shut down. Two of the six weren't even online, but are still having coolant issues, just far less severe cooling issues. "Shutting down" isn't instantaneous and coolant circulation is required after the control rods fail to safe. Heck, even outside of the core, outside of the reactor entirely, they are having serious problems with the spent rod pools overheating.

Cooling is ridiculously important well after the reaction is "stopped".

[Whimsical Eloquence]

If anything, recent events at Fukushima have served to merely strengthen and reaffirm my confidence in Nuclear Energy, putting to rest most serious doubts I had about it. A horribly old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monstrous earthquake before it was again assaulted by a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system, its reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed an all too familiar legacy of inferior design and corner-cutting. Yet, given current information, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation. Indeed, despite typical and rather worrying hyperbole on the part of many, one only has to look to XKCD's very own graphic for some reassuring perspective.

[roflwaffle]

Higher standards than the 1971 GE Mark 1? A design that had the exact safety concerns that are currently playing out raised by GE Engineers in 1976? Yeah, probably. But hindsight is perfect, after all. Although for a containment vessel that was criticized as being too weak, it did survive a 9.0 earthquake. It was flooding of ancillary systems that caused the problem. The current damage to one of the containment buildings was as a result of the hydrogen explosion triggered by build ups after cooling failures. Sure, maybe the earthquake weakened it a bit. But it did hold.

Do we already require higher standards for new plants? Yes.

So the question becomes "should be retrofit older plants?" We probably should, on a case by case basis look at potential failure modes and what could be done to reasonably mitigate some of them. Like not putting the backup generators below sea level, assuming the sea walls will always be sufficient.

I don't think saying that it held in this case implies it will hold in all cases with newer designs. Apparently we should be looking at things from the perspective of something like the Mercalli Intensity scale, or better yet peak and mean acceleration along w/ a look at the resonant frequencies of a particular structure. For instance earthquakes with magnitudes as low as 6.7 have exhibited peak accelerations well over what the AP1000 was designed to take according to GE. If we're lucky the current standards we have in place are acceptable, but if we're unlucky, and in Japan's case w/ the tsunami they were certainly unlucky, we may have trouble and I don't think that's worth the risk compared to not renewing existing plants if they're in a high risk area or requiring current designs to be more robust and/or located in different areas.

[jules.LT]

Once radioactive waste is disposed of in an appropriately designed deep geological repository, it is finished, a solved problem, and doesn't require any attention from future generations.

Thats a bit of an ideal case i would have thought.

The words 'appropriately designed' carry a whole lot of weight in this sentence right here.

Well, the fission products, plutonium and other actinides created in the 16 nuclear reactors at Oklo have been successfully contained in the ground there, with no engineering involved whatsoever, for the last two billion years.

Well, I know that there have been a few scandals about nuclear leakage here in France, including into water supplies.
They're "only" local accidents, but they do feed the scare.

Nuclear fission seems like it is the only way to fill in for fossil fuels before we can scale up renewable energies and make controlled nuclear fusion efficient (if ever?). Still, knowing that Japan, the US and France of all countries sometimes have trouble managing the risks makes me very nervous about having dozens of nuclear plants in China or India...

[bigglesworth]

Actually I fully trust China to throw away workers' lives if it will make the nuclear incident safe faster...

[roflwaffle]

I finally dug up some interesting information on the ground motion of the quake. It looks like the plant was in an area that experienced peak ground acceleration of ~2.5-40 m/s^2 which was within or a smidge above it's rated design. The problem in the context of plants operating near fault lines is that even earthquakes of much smaller magnitudes can exhibit larger PGAs of ~15-20m/s^2, and that these can originate from previously unknown faults. In that context I think that current safe shutdown thresholds of existing plants and designs of ~3+ m/s^2 is a bit on the low side and that something like ~10+m/s^2 is a better idea if the plant is located in a seismically active area.

[thorgold]

Here's the issue, as I see it:

Humans are energy guzzlers. Since the dawn of time, we've been trying to harness and manipulate the energy around us - fires to heat our homes, water to run our factories, electricity to light the night, and so on. With our current technology, there are three main sources of energy available to us - fossil fuels, general renewable energy sources, and nuclear energy. The problem lies in that we require the energy output of fossil fuels, but our supplies are running out and renewable energy isn't currently sufficient to cover our needs. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is capable of meeting a good chunk of world energy needs, with ample resources to use and reasonably clean production.

Nuclear energy, unfortunately, is the victim of uninformed hysteria. "SHIT, SHIT, RADIATIONZ." It's somewhat logical, I guess, since the primary focus of nuclear research in the past century has been devoted to warfare. As a society, we need to punch the fear-mongers in their underdeveloped scrotums and point out that, besides eliminating the majority of world energy consumption, we're screwed if we don't start adapting to nuclear power before our supplies of oil run out.

The argument arises that nuclear energy is too dangerous for its benefits. The risks of meltdown are slapped down like a "Damage +99999" card and expected to end the argument and make the pro-nuclear party crawl into a fetal position. Well, let me point out that catastrophic meltdown is rare when the right precautions are taken. The only two major meltdowns in history - Chernobyl and Japan - are the result of poor design and foresight. Chernobyl was staffed by halfwits who bypassed protocol for kicks, and like pressing the self-destruct button in a plane accidentally, couldn't figure out how to fix it. Add that the Russian government wasted valuable time by trying to deny the disaster before being forced to admit there was a "problem" when people in Belarus started glowing.

Japan was just a bad idea to begin with - look at a map of natural hazards like fault lines, volcanoes, and the like. The Pacific is called the "Ring of Fire" for a reason - and Japan is just a massive glob of hazards. Building a nuclear reactor in a country where earthquakes and nasty shit is guaranteed to happen is like balancing a boiling pot of water on your head while walking through Times Square on New Year's - there's no question of if you'll get bumped and scald yourself and the fifty people around you, but how long it'll take. In Japan's case, they had a numerous safety systems a ring of bodyguards, but when there are fifty thousand natural hazards people pressing in, you can't do much.

Well, that string of metaphors exhausted, let's get back on topic. Nuclear energy is, for the most part, the most practical solution to our energy woes for the forseeable future. Unless the good ol' alchemists find a way to turn lead into gold high-grade petroleum or we find an ancient Mayan infinite energy machine, we can't just sit around with our thums up our asses saying it's too dangerous. Nuclear energy may be "bad," but like democracy, it's simultaneously the best option.

[stevenf]

Here is the text of a letter that I sent to a national daily paper this week:

Sir

We risk being rushed to judgment by both the pro- and anti- nuclear lobbies in the wake of Fukushima.

The pros concentrate on their low carbon and low fatality claims. The antis focus on the proliferation risk and waste containment. There is substance and flaws in both positions.

Can we construct a compromise position?

Industry, science and medicine would be put back fifty years without a reliable supply of isotopes and reactors are required to maintain (and eventually decommission) a nuclear arsenal, so someone, somewhere has to have reactors.

The pros are apt to quote the quantitative whilst ignoring the qualitative aspect of risk. Radiation's crucial interaction with biology is with DNA - the code sequence that defines all life. Damage to DNA is cumulative, transmitted between generations and of unknown effect over substantial numbers of generations. Our present DNA has evolved under the influence of background radiation, the effects of acute or chronic exposure to higher levels of radiation is unknowable and will remain so for centuries - if we are spared.

Though the UK is seismically quiescent, academic papers, written after 9/11, outline the problems arising following an airborne attack at Sellafield. Explosive disruption of features other than the reactors would, in combination with the prevailing wind, render much of England north of the Morcambe Bay and southern Scotland, coast to coast, uninhabitable for generations. An outcome characterised as '44 times worse than Chernobyl'.

Nuclear power at the most minimal level possible, in deeply buried facilities in seismically stable areas above sea level - yes.

Yours etc.



For those who don't know - Sellafield is a reprocessing plant for nuclear fuel assemblies and weapons as well as a power station. It is also the site of a major graphite fire in the fifties.


There is no shortage of energy. We have more than we need now or could possibly want in the future - and its all renewable. We only have to adjust our technical and social depth of focus to see it. Then we need to commit ourselves to a global "New Deal" to achieve it. No matter how remote or proximate the exhausting of mineral resources may be, their exploitation does create mess and problems and they will run out eventually.

Solar, tidal, marine current, wind - these are the nearest any of us will ever approach to a perpetual motion machine and its all free and ubiquitous. We would be completely insane not to exploit them to the greatest possible degree in every nation on earth and to collaborate in their equitable distribution.

[HungryHobo]

The pros are apt to quote the quantitative whilst ignoring the qualitative aspect o' risk. Radiation's crucial interaction with biology is with DNA - the code sequence that defines all life. Damage to DNA is cumulative, transmitted between generations and o' unknown infect over substantial letters o' generations. Our present DNA has evolved under the influence o' background radiation, the effects o' acute or chronic exposure to higher levels o' radiation is unknowable and will remain so for centuries - if we are spared.

I wouldn't say "unknowable".
We have some good examples.

An interesting read on the subject of the effect of long term high level radiation exposure on a population.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/ramsar.html

It should be stated that the interaction with DNA isn't unique to radiation.
There's a lot of completely non-radioactive substances which will diddle with your DNA and cause mutations.

[infernovia]

Thor is no shortage o' energy. We have more then we need now or could possibly want in the future - and its all renewable

Renewable energy sources still needs a lot of research before it can account for current energy consumption (in America, outside of hydro, renewable energy accounts for 2.3%). Comparatively, scientists understand nuclear energy much better so it can act as the transition power source before renewable energy source kicks in (which I doubt will happen).

Also, nuclear power plants can withstand a lot of damage. http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/aircraftcrashbreach/ There are tons of other targets if you want to do a lot of damage instead of something as well designed as a nuclear power plant. Although it would be impossible for me to say whether your statement was true or false.

[roflwaffle]

Plants can take a lot in terms of a single impact, but if a plant experienced an earthquake w/ PGAs in excess of one gravity there's no guarantee it would survive that. For instance the AP1000 can supposedly withstand an airliner hitting it (technically a Phantom at 500mph, but the KE is equivalent or greater), but it's only rated to withstand a PGA of .3g, so additional modifications would probably be a good idea if it's located near faults.

In terms of renewables, they have gotten to the point where they're able to compete w/ existing sources of generation, but where and how depends on the specifics. In America non-hydro renewables account for 3.6% of net generation and are growing at about .4%/year as of 2009. In the last six years we've added ~34MW of wind power. That would probably increase if externalized costs were accounted for in a better way, but since natural gas gets a pass for GHG emissions along with everyone else it seems to growing the fastest. Nuclear power otoh appears to need loan guarantees to compete these days so we aren't in the same climate we were during the last big nuclear roll-out, but that could also change if we accounted for carbon costs. I don't think any particular generation source will win out in the future, but I also don't think anything is particularly disadvantaged outside of coal and natural gas if we start accounting for more in the way of externalized costs than we currently do and if renewables continue to drop in cost.

[HiddenCounter]

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.

Not really, at most, 50 people will die from radiation in two years, and that is after being hit by an earthquake and tsunami.


I think this just proves how safe nuclear energy really is.