Nuclear Energy?

[Abize]

2 pages in and no mention of the hazardous by-products of nuclear power

Err, I did...

This thread is mildly amusing to say the least, seems that only those who dare to critic nuclear power in the slightest have to provide sources and citations for our collective panel of crack nuclear scientists. Anyway, 'tis wasted energy (pardon the pun) for the most part so I'll just depart leaving this here which covers about everything I've already said and more besides;

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/43

Taken from the journal "Although previous results could be reproduced by the current study,the present status of radiobiological and epidemiological knowledge does not allow the conclusion that the ionising radiation emitted by German nuclear power stations during normal operation is the cause. This study cannot conclusively clarify whether confounders, selection or randomness play a role in the distance trend observed.". Basically there is a trend of diagnosed childhood with cancer (particularly leukemia) in relation to how close to nuclear power plants they are. But they can't confirm it is nuclear power or a factor that havn't considered. Though adults don't have a higher rate of cancer or weren't covered by the study.

 

[Phisi]

i am for nuclear energy but the safety implications are serious. Here in Australia where we have no earthquakes or tsunamis and a large granite blob to dispose of waste in it would be perfect for nuclear energy (and Solar but that is quite costly) while a country like Japan which is heavily industrialised and has those problems should be burning the coal we burn currently. Nuclear energy is not suitable for anywhere and any country and countries need to work together for ensuring everyone has safe energy with minimum pollution.

 

[Aurgelmir]

We need more of it. It makes no greenhouse gases, it doesn't care if the sun's shining or the wind is blowing, it's highly efficient(A reactor the size of a minivan can power hundreds of thousands of homes), it makes a great way to dispose of nuclear weapons not needed(Though I'm on the fence about actually doing this), you can siphon off medial isotopes fairly easily, and it's just plain fucking interesting to anyone who likes physics and powerful tech. Oh, and it's perfectly safe.

And that's just fission tech. Fusion is only going to improve it, provided we can make fusion actually work.




Build more reactors, goddammit! Dams only work in some locations, reactors work anywhere there's a large river.

I agree with you sir.

Although there is still the issue of storing nuclear waste, but how can we improve if we dont work on it?

A lot of people are afraid of nuclear power due to Chernobyl and now what happened in Japan. This has lead a lot of countries to start shutting down the reactors.
BUT here is the problem with those two plants:
One was built using a standard which is REALLY unstable.
The other is built in a country that has a HUGE problem with earth quakes and tsunami, meaning it was a high risk placement.

So yeah I am for putting nuclear plants in places where they are not at a huge natural risk...

 

[Leadfinger]

I'm writing this from Japan, where still a large part of Touhoku is a Chernobyl zone because of radiation. When the accident occurred there were blackouts and food rationing as far away as Tokyo. In short, the Fukushima disaster was of such a scale to effect the whole country for decades to come. When the costs of even one accident are so enormous, how can nuclear be seen as a viable energy source?

 

[s0p0g]

2 problems:
-when something goes wrong at a nuclear power plant, chances are good it gets really ugly really fast for a really long time
-waste disposal - we don't have nuclear power plants for a long time, nor radioactive waste disposal sites, and already problems occur

so not only do we have power plants which are not 100% save (the power plant itself, maybe, but when this planet gets so much as a hiccup, or the operators fuck up, things easily go...awry), we also have no long term solution for the dangerous waste - the disposal sites *must* be perfectly save for tens of thousands (that's a big number) of years, while in fact they don't provide the safety for just half a century - at least not every single one of them, and that is dangerous

are you going to be the one who explains to my grandchildren why their goldfish glow in the dark? ^^

so in its *current* state: no; it's the only thing that's capable of providing enough energy on a more or less long term for our energy-hungry society, but it doesn't work safely enough


also, what Leadfinger said.

 

[Abize]

I'm writing this from Japan, where still a large part of Touhoku is a Chernobyl zone because of radiation. When the accident occurred there were blackouts and food rationing as far away as Tokyo. In short, the Fukushima disaster was of such a scale to effect the whole country for decades to come. When the costs of even one accident are so enormous, how can nuclear be seen as a viable energy source?

It may be because a magnitude 9+ earthquake followed by a massive tsunami aren't common occurences anywhere in the world and the fact that the plant's physical structure withstood both of these and if only the flood water hadn't knocked out the backup generators to the cooling things would have been fine. Was it mentioned that this is the OLDEST nuclear plant in Japan that was a week from being shutdown?

If people base their entire view on something based off one freak accident, why on earth do we still fly planes, drive cars and travel in boats? They have all had accidents that have cost hundreds to thousands of lives yet we don't go demonising them the same way we demonise nuclear power.

 

[Antari]

That won't always be so, they are pretty rapidly improving the power requirements to create hydrogen in large amounts. The progress will put Nuclear energy into the history books in time.

Uhm, hydrogen can never become an energy source, because that would break the laws of physics, the first law of thermodynamics to be precies. It's not possible to create more energy than you're using up while making hydrogen.

Hydrogen is a form of energy storage.

I'm not saying we're right around the corner from the breakthrough, but we should quit wasting time on a clearly dangerous form of energy. It won't be the first or the last "law" of physics to be adapted to fit our capabilities.

 

[Antari]

I'm not saying we're right around the corner from the breakthrough, but we should quit wasting time on a clearly dangerous form of energy. It won't be the first or the last "law" of physics to be adapted to fit our capabilities.

So you'd rather waste a lot of effort and money on a remote gamble that a law of physics that held for centuries and doens't look like being incorrect anywhere, will break and provide us with maybe a fraction of the energy we need, over a safe proven method with plenty of power and at least four centuries worth of fuel?

Well yes if you want modern government to approve it. It will have to be a massive money sink, so they can get some camera time. And they'd much rather be infront of that camera spending people's money than admitting they screwed up a disaster clean up. About the only place I see nuclear power being the only practical solution is with long range space craft, where you don't have the ability to refuel. Then the weight to power to risk is worth it. If things go wrong out there as well, it won't affect us too much. Even if hydrogen isn't the answer something else might be. We just need to actually put more effort into discovering it. Right now industry is far too comfortable using existing methods.

 

[ike42]

That won't always be so, they are pretty rapidly improving the power requirements to create hydrogen in large amounts. The progress will put Nuclear energy into the history books in time.

Uhm, hydrogen can never become an energy source, because that would break the laws of physics, the first law of thermodynamics to be precies. It's not possible to create more energy than you're using up while making hydrogen.

Hydrogen is a form of energy storage.

While you're right, I just wanted to clarify in some detail. The energy in the bond of hydrogen to oxygen in water (they byproduct of combustion) is very large. We must always put enough energy into water to break the bond (plus a little more to get over the activation energy hump). We will never be able to completely harvest the energy from combustion of the Hydrogen that we created because the Carnot principle states that no heat engine can ever have greater than a 50% efficiency. Even if we were able to harvest all the energy that we put in, that would put us at completely even for energy in/out. At best we would call that energy storage, not an energy source.

 

[RobDaBank]

I'm kind of on the fence in that I support the idea and agree with the need, but if I woke up to find a power plant at the bottom of my garden I would move away, just to be safe...

 

[ike42]

If anyone is interested, I worked in nuclear power plants in the US Navy for 9.5 years and can confirm the safety of nuclear power. Our radiation exposure was monitored continuously and it was extremely low. I had mine checked every month by a device I wore on my belt. Now all you nuclear naysayers, if I'm sitting inside the plant every day for months how are you going to try to make the claim that you're getting more radiation exposure than me? Also, many of you are making a confusion of the difference between radiation and contamination. Radiation is not physical (for practical purposes). It is effectively electromagnetic waves emitted from radioactive materials. Those radioactive materials are contamination. The primary concern is if people are exposed to contamination because it will be a source of continued exposure to radiation. For that reason, areas around nuclear power plants are monitored very closely by international boards (such as the international nuclear regulatory commission). If there is any violation of contamination being released to the environment a plant is quickly shut down. People afraid of nuclear power are acting out of ignorance. Even if waste were the concern, just think of it as a condensed product that is produced in a controllable fashion, instead of being spewed into the environment causing acid rains and (possible) anthropogenic global warming like coal.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I'm writing this from Japan, where still a large part of Touhoku is a Chernobyl zone because of radiation. When the accident occurred there were blackouts and food rationing as far away as Tokyo. In short, the Fukushima disaster was of such a scale to effect the whole country for decades to come. When the costs of even one accident are so enormous, how can nuclear be seen as a viable energy source?

pffft not like it's the first time the Japanese have been nuked... they'll be fine

And the dick of the Month award goes to....

Ok, as regards nuclear fuel I have this to say:

It's a great way to produce energy, in that other sources such as wind, solar etc. are unreliable. With nuclear energy it is really easy to calculate how much energy you are going to get, so excess energy will not be wasted on the grid.
It does have it's downsides, of which nuclear waste is the largest, but waste has been minimised phenomenally so far, and will hopefully be reduced to so little as to be a negligible problem in the next few decades, with cleaner fuel sources, more efficient use/reuse of fuel, and even possibly nuclear fusion in the cards, it could become a really clean energy.

All other power generation devices have major drawbacks that actually make them less desirable than a potentially minimum waste nuclear facility: Geothermal has a rather small scale production, and only suited to a few places geologically (and if the holes are drilled incorrectly could develop new fault lines and earthquake zones)
Wind and solar are again small scale, expensive, and unreliable. To create a large generation of electricity from them you'd need to plaster them everywhere, and as far as the national grid is concerned, the potential energy a wind farm could output must be slashed by a third to account for it's unreliability.
Hydroelectric is great, but really devastates the immediate local environments, and can lead to huge sustainability issues with the local ecosystems and riverflow (see the Nile Aswan dam for details on screwing up the environment)
As for coal, oil and gas, well they are disatrous for the environment, dangerous to locals living near them, deadly for miners digging the stuff up, desolate the seas during oil spills, and we are running out. Wait, why do we still support them?

In my opinion nuclear energy is not yet at the stage where it is ideal for taking over from fossil fuels, but it is very near that point. Within a decade or two I would expect nuclear safety and cleanliness to improve so much that having them as the main power sources to our national grids would be ideal.

 

[JeanLuc761]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes

Apperently the Earthquake that hit Fukushima was the fifth biggest EVAHR, it's just insanity to be against Nuclear energy in countries were earthquakes are an impossibility /such as mine).

And it wasn't even the earthquake that caused the problem. The 26' tsunami destroyed the primary cooling to the reactors, leading to a meltdown. The likelihood of something like this EVER occurring is so minuscule, that you're probably more likely to be eaten by a shark while being struck by lighting than it ever happening again.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Just throwing it out there, there was the whole Japan thing not long ago so that might shake public faith. Not saying I am against it.

If Nuclear Power plants were built like Nuclear bombs, America should stop making them.

 

[Jowe]

I'm very much opposed to nuclear energy except as a last resort. One wonders if all in support actually have a reactor on their doorstep and know more about the dark side that comes with it. Just as a rather sobering example; cancer rates where I live are four times the national average, and this is a plant with a "good" safety record. What you have to realise is that virtually all the "scientific" groups and thinktanks who are massively in favour of nuclear energy are funded by the energy giants themselves who unsurprisingly have a vested interest in the public perceiving them as the messiah and saviour. There's plenty of local censorship too and no consultations with people in the immediate area, rather taking opinions from a large city over 30 miles away after running with some heavy propaganda campaigns. Even with this public opinion is very divided, the further you are away from the plant the more opinion sways in favour of nuclear energy.

No, give me a tidal barrage with a wind farm atop instead. Yes, it's not the cheapest option (which is why the plans have been made but building yet another reactor is going ahead) but you are effectively throwing the public under the bus in the name of corporate greed. That should be unacceptable to any civilised person, and a nice fuck you to anyone who says nuclear energy is worth more than my child's life.

That's just the day-to-day running, have no lessons been learned from the Fukushima disaster which has ruined large swathes of the country and sent nuclear fallout around the world?

You know that a coal fired plant releases 3 times more radiation than a nuclear plant?
read this before saying that nuclear power is a purely bad thing:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

and also, a tidal barrage can only be built in very few places, theres only one feasible place in the UK, the bristol channel. Most countries don't even have one or two.

 

[kuroshimo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

This should dissuade everyone of their nuclear fears. It is the best solution for long term energy.

^This^
Thank you for beating me to the punch on Thorium.

Also, to plug a site that needs more traffic.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html

EDIT:
although any kind of nuclear energy production is only a stopgap measure until we can produce a sufficient swarm around the sun to be powered by a Dyson Swarm. I personally like the solar/wind farms that use huge, circular greenhouses to funnel high-speed wind into a turbine, but I can't remember the name.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

But nuclear waste the come's from this practice is very dangerous. If their was a proper way to dispose of it then I'd support it more, but it's a little to dangerous of a bi-product for me.

 

[Limecake]

But nuclear waste the come's from this practice is very dangerous. If their was a proper way to dispose of it then I'd support it more, but it's a little to dangerous of a bi-product for me.

Partly true, a lot of the nuclear waste we create from nuclear reactors (namely uranium waste) has a half-life of around 1000 years this is the waste we burry, while other products used in the process (some with half-lives that range from 200,000 to 16 million years) are transmuted into waste that takes much less time to decay. (often less than 30 years).

And as for transportation of nuclear waste, the containers for said waste are incredibly sturdy for obvious reasons.

And the leaking nuclear plant in japan? when it was hit with a earthquake the roof of one of the cooling pools was blown off (a cooling pool is where you put nuclear waste that is still very hot.) the pool evaporated exposing the nuclear waste out in the open, however the amount of radiation released was small (the waste is much less radioactive)

If you ask me I'd like to see nuclear power more widely accepted. if we accept it, we will allow people to make even safer/more efficient nuclear power plants.

 

[Leadfinger]

I'm writing this from Japan, where still a large part of Touhoku is a Chernobyl zone because of radiation. When the accident occurred there were blackouts and food rationing as far away as Tokyo. In short, the Fukushima disaster was of such a scale to effect the whole country for decades to come. When the costs of even one accident are so enormous, how can nuclear be seen as a viable energy source?

It may be because a magnitude 9+ earthquake followed by a massive tsunami aren't common occurences anywhere in the world and the fact that the plant's physical structure withstood both of these and if only the flood water hadn't knocked out the backup generators to the cooling things would have been fine. Was it mentioned that this is the OLDEST nuclear plant in Japan that was a week from being shutdown?

If people base their entire view on something based off one freak accident, why on earth do we still fly planes, drive cars and travel in boats? They have all had accidents that have cost hundreds to thousands of lives yet we don't go demonising them the same way we demonise nuclear power.

Traffic accidents do not make whole regions uninhabitable for decades. And earthquakes and tsunami in Japan aren't freak accidents, but contingencies that must be planned for. Our very word for tidal wave in English, "tsunami," comes from the Japanese because tsunami are common in Japan. Why build a plant in an earthquake zone and in a place historically subject to tsunami, yet situate the back-up generators in a place where they will be flooded? BTW, the plant's physical structure didn't hold up-the quake cracked the containment vessel. That's why the reactors are still leaking radiation.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I support nuclear plants. They provide a lot of power, we've come a long, long way since Chernobyl and in this province it is not under threat of earthquake damage. Mind you, Saskatchewan doesn't have too many power demands when compared to more populous regions of the country but it is more environmentally friendly.

I always used Nuclear Power in the Sim City games until Fusion became available. Speaking of which, has that been completely disproved or something? I dunno, I don't keep up with these things. I just like building cities and then summoning 26 consecutive hurricanes.

Oh, no. Fusion hasn't been disproved.

There are in fact several working fusion research plants. The concept certainly seems to work, but the details in the execution are still a problem.

There's two main methods. Laser fusion, being researched in the US, and plasma fusion, which has been the subject of research for at least 50-60 years in various countries.

A Plasma fusion research reactor was built in South Korea only recently.

The reactor apparently provides 2-3 as much energy as it takes to initiate a fusion reaction.
It's main purpose is to test long-term running of a reactor.

That sounds OK, but the people running it say for a commercially useful reactor the energy output would need to be about 40-50 times what it takes to sustain the reaction.

Also, The reactor can run maybe for 10 hours at a time.

A commercial reactor would have to be able to run non-stop for about 10 months at a time to be genuinely useful.

But, the people running that reactor think they're on the home straight. The principle of operation seems to have been determined... Now it's mostly a matter of fine-tuning things and making it more reliable and effective.

On the other hand, fusion research doesn't get much funding. If it got, say a billion a year for a couple of years progress would probably be a lot faster.