Nuclear power, yay or nay?

[rednose1]

So with Vermont Yankee joining the list of decommissioned nuke plants, I wondered what The Escapist people thought about it.

I'm biased, but wish we had more nuke plants, not less. The biggest hurdles has always been the same: NIMBY causes newer, safer plants to be nothing more than a pipe dream, then as older plants experience trouble running well past their original lifetime, they point and say, "see, told you so!" Add the economies of energy production (the nail in the coffin for VY) and things just get worse.

Oh, an invisible poll. Those are always interesting.

Yea, had to get rid of poll. Figures I'd mess it up my first crack at one.

 

[Ryotknife]

I wish we had more, hell its one of the things the US government seems to be good at making. A lot of my older family members see nuclear power plants as an atomic bomb just waiting to go off and destroy an entire city. This fear seems to be somewhat common in my state (NY).

 

[username sucks]

Oh, an invisible poll. Those are always interesting.

Anyway, I am also pro-nuclear power, but I think that more research should be put into fusion power before more fission plants are built. From what I've read, Science has advanced to the point where energy is just past breaking even in fiusion reactions, and there is significantly less waste that needs to be put in a giant lead box and buried(or whatever they do with the waste that will ill everything nearby).

So I'm pro nuclear power, but not the kind that leaves toxic waste for centuries.

A lot of my older family members see nuclear power plants as an atomic bomb just waiting to go off and destroy an entire city. This fear seems to be somewhat common in my state (NY).

Even with what I just said, I still think people should at least educate themselves on how this stuff works. They don't actually blow stuff up in the plants, they just let the particles break down to boil water, and they get electricity from the steam.

So the worst that could happen is a small explosion, with radiation poisoning being applied to everything for many miles around, making it unusable and toxic to everything that enters the area for centuries. That's not nearly as bad, right?

 

[sextus the crazy]

I wish we had more, hell its one of the things the US government seems to be good at making. A lot of my older family members see nuclear power plants as an atomic bomb just waiting to go off and destroy an entire city. This fear seems to be somewhat common in my state (NY).

Ditto. I'm pretty cool with it. It's got a better KwH/ deaths ratio than conventional fuels. And I'm not scared of any environmental stuff either. I wouldn't mind having to live near one (I do live in the city, so that'd be hard to do, but...) so I'm for it. It's not like it's any worse than strip mining the earth or nasty oil spills.

 

[DefunctTheory]

From what I've read, Science has advanced to the point where energy is just past breaking even in fiusion reactions, and there is significantly less waste that needs to be put in a giant lead box and buried(or whatever they do with the waste that will ill everything nearby).

For the most part, they put the waste in water pools, as water is very good at containing radiation, and has the advantage of being see through and navigable. As opposed to putting it in concrete and crossing your fingers, unable to actually check.

As for nuclear power, I'm all for it. Of all the fuel burning power methods, nuclear reactors cause the least amount of environmental damage, are easier to maintain, are far cheaper to run (Even after the ridiculous starting cost), and the newer ones (Relatively) are actually fairly simple to upgrade. They also have the convenience of being able to contain what nasty stuff comes out, rather then coil and oil plants that despite our best efforts still spew shit everywhere.

Of course, I think that's the big problem. Fossil fuel plants don't really have waste storage (Except for some of the new stuff), so its easy for people to get confused. Nukes leave behind big nasty rods of poison that's easy to photograph and have nightmares about. That's a GOOD thing, as opposed to poison smoke and slag that just goes out into the world and disappears. But people don't seem to think about that.

Plus, new research is being done to turn nuclear waste into more fuel. Lets see you take CO2 gas and shove it back into the furnace, coal plant.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Fusion? HELL YES!

Fission? No.

Removing the whole nuclear waste/contamination and terrorist (hah!) kerfuffle from the equation, there is still the issue that fissile materials are a finite resource.

Breeder Reactors can alleviate this somewhat but at the end of the day replacing coal-fired and oil power stations with Nucelar ones is simply moving from one addiction to another.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Makes sense for some places less for others. For example, in Ireland it would be idiotic to have Nuclear power of any kind while our electric grid so isolated. If one was ever set up it would meet such a large portion of Ireland's electricity demand that if the electric generation portion ever went down(which they can do often) the whole grid would black out.

 

[Esotera]

Oh, an invisible poll. Those are always interesting.

Anyway, I am also pro-nuclear power, but I think that more research should be put into fusion power before more fission plants are built. From what I've read, Science has advanced to the point where energy is just past breaking even in fiusion reactions, and there is significantly less waste that needs to be put in a giant lead box and buried(or whatever they do with the waste that will ill everything nearby).

They're building a fusion reactor in France that is supposed to generate a couple hundred Mw but I believe that won't come til about 2020, which is a long time to put off building fission plants.

OT: I think the best use of nuclear power is if it's used as a reliable backup for a renewable system. It's pretty expensive and there's no current method of disposing of spent fuel, or even keeping it safe after use.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Yes.

And here is a trick question back to US. You developed SC-TCR reactors - around 80's. (those are Sodium cooled - Thorium cycle reactors). A reactor that can fuel itself from any combination of fissile material and will run until there is no longer enough physical fuel to support the thorium cycle, even nuclear waste, decommissioned plutonium, recycled deployed uranium (that US army is currently using for armor piercing bullets).

Some safety tips:
The salt compounds used to cool these type of cycle reactors expand upon heating, absorbing more neutrons - slowing down the reaction and upon cooling fastening it.
Meaning of design these reactors can not operate over 120-130% of reactor peak efficiency temperature. Which can be in smaller reactors around 800 kelvin in to bigger fast cycle reactors 1300 kelvin.

YOU DESIGNED AND TESTED THESE REACTORS IN YOUR UNIVERSITIES! Only other country to design these were the germans and we know their status with nuclear power.

Just don't take the mistake of trying to design Hydrogen Fusion reactors. Those aren't working now or in a long time. (tho tritium can be used to create breeding sections in bigger reactors, if you still want to make weapons grade plutonium/uranium.

There gen V reactors wouldn't generate waste, but use it.

Like one of these would be enough to power whole of Finland and generate heat for the infrastructure.

It as been calculated that if we were to use all Fission material available we would have clean efficient power for 7.8 million years. That is with the resources mapped at the moment.

But I know the ignorance and fear mongering about terrorism will prevent these from being build.

 

[Yopaz]

I am pro nuclear power, but I am on the edge of it.

I'm not concerned about the safety, the new ones are quite safe and the issues in the past have usually been caused by the plants running for too long. Storing the waste is tricky though.

I don't think it's the ultimate option, that would be to be sustained completely by renewable energy, but it's a lot better than using fossil fuel.

 

[infohippie]

Absolutely yay. I am all for nuclear power. I don't think the boiling water and pressurised water reactors currently in wide use are a good idea, though. I want to see molten-salt-fuelled reactors springing up everywhere. They can be far safer, more efficient, pretty much meltdown-proof, and can use a much wider range of fuels without requiring the highly-enriched uranium that water based reactors use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

 

[Kyber]

Yes. I'm not the best when it comes to talk about Fission and Fusion and all that other jazz, mostly because I never really paid any attention in physics class. But it looks like to me all the things I could say about why nuclear power is the way to go, has been said, and it has been said a lot better than I could ever have.

 

[Trasch17]

Nay.

I live in the death radius (~50km) around one and I took a look at the emergency plans they have in case something happens. I can summarize them pretty easily: "We have no f****ing clue what to do if something happens."

There have also been several accidents in this particular power plant that let me doubt the competence of the operators, for instance: They've lost fuel elements in the fuel pool a few years ago. And they still haven't found a big chunk of them. Oh, and they also have the bad habit of telling the public that an incident occured... 2 weeks after it happened.

Also, for some inexplicable reason (at least for the operators), the risk of getting leukaemia in that 50km radius around the power plant is 3.4 times higher than normal.
I'm just glad they have to shut that thing down by 2022.

 

[Lliustril]

Yes, in the US and other geographically stable areas.
Here in New Zealand and other places like Japan where there are high chances of earthquakes/tsunamis its just a bad idea.

As mentioned the waste needs to be stored forever (not all waste can be used in further reactions, ie used protective clothing etc). The US has deserts away from people that are ideal for this. In other countries the waste has to be stored on land that could be used for food production/housing and if a spill/leak occurs it results in more land being taken out of production/housing. On that note the risk of transporting the waste has to be remembered.

If successful terrorist attacks were more likely then it wouldn't be such a good choice, a lot of damage could be done if the plants or waste (esp during transport) were targeted.

However the US really should put more effort into renewable/sustainable energy production, ie solar, wind, water and geothermal.

It really comes down to the region/area. You wouldn't want a plant anywhere near the San Andreas fault.

 

[UrinalDook]

Oh, an invisible poll. Those are always interesting.

Anyway, I am also pro-nuclear power, but I think that more research should be put into fusion power before more fission plants are built. From what I've read, Science has advanced to the point where energy is just past breaking even in fiusion reactions, and there is significantly less waste that needs to be put in a giant lead box and buried(or whatever they do with the waste that will ill everything nearby).

Not quite. JET in Oxford managed to achieve just under the break even point. I believe it was the tokamak that supposedly achieved above the break even point, but I also believe this was a technicality of extrapolated measurements, not an actual sustained fission reaction.

So break even hasn't quite happened yet. JET's just finished a massive wind down period after it's record break, however, and they're gearing up (slowly) towards another full power run. Apparently, those same 'extrapolated measurements' done on JET suggest the next time it's fired up properly, it might push past the break even point.

And, as somebody mentioned, ITER is also predicted to pass that point sometime around 2020.

It's also worth mentioning these experiments didn't actually run for very long. That peak power generation that nearly broke even also only lasted a couple of seconds. We're a long way off fusion being an economically viable, environmentally safe energy solution.

But it is coming. Slowly.

For the most part, they put the waste in water pools, as water is very good at containing radiation, and has the advantage of being see through and navigable. As opposed to putting it in concrete and crossing your fingers, unable to actually check.

Not exactly. The main use of water in a nuclear plant is as a means of heat exchange. Usually, it's part of the heat engine that generates the electricity, but in some cases it's also used for calling. This means that nuclear plants need a large supply of water, so they're often built by rivers or lakes. The problem is that the water returned to these systems is usually still very warm, and this has a massive effect on the river or lake. A common problem is the extra energy in the water overstimulates algae growth, which then consumes as much available oxygen as it can and chokes the river, potentially causing irreparable damage to the local ecosystem.

This is by far and away the biggest ecological impact of nuclear power, and goes sadly underdocumented. Contrary to popular belief, the fissile waste products aren't too difficult to deal with. Expensive, perhaps. But little enough waste material is produced, and it's radiological effects relatively easily contained that sticking in a big block of concrete and burying it is sufficient to avoid environmental issues.

The biggest issue is not what the nuclear waste is doing now, but the length of time it will be doing it, and the danger to anyone who digs it back up. When scientists talk about concerns over the long half-life of the waste products, this is what they're referring to, not the length of time the environment is affected by it.



With all that said, I'm massively pro-nuclear power. The science and engineering behind it has advanced a hell of a lot since the initial teething problems, and modern designs are crazy safe and efficient, with very few environmental or economic drawbacks (especially compared with the god awful fossil fuels we humans insist on using). Even the waterways issue I mentioned earlier can be avoided in several new(ish) designs that utilise other materials for cooling and heat exchange.

But I do understand people's hesitation over it. I'm massively for it because I'm read up on it. I understand how they work. Two years of A-level, three years of uni studying the broader subject has given me very good insight. But you simply can't expect everyone to to study the facts in such depth and then draw the right conclusion, nor should you expect people to just take such an important thing on faith.

The biggest challenge the nuclear industry faces is a marketing one: convincing people in a post-9/11, post-terrorism, post-Chernobyl world that humans in government (yes, those guys) can make these things run incident free. Enthusiasm for nuclear power is maybe one of the few things the fifties got right...

 

[Denamic]

In regards to the nuclear waste; yes it exists. So what if we have to store it somewhere? It's better than storing it in the atmosphere, like other kinds of power plants does.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Oh, an invisible poll. Those are always interesting.

Anyway, I am also pro-nuclear power, but I think that more research should be put into fusion power before more fission plants are built. From what I've read, Science has advanced to the point where energy is just past breaking even in fiusion reactions, and there is significantly less waste that needs to be put in a giant lead box and buried(or whatever they do with the waste that will ill everything nearby).

Not quite. JET in Oxford managed to achieve just under the break even point. I believe it was the tokamak that supposedly achieved above the break even point, but I also believe this was a technicality of extrapolated measurements, not an actual sustained fission reaction.

So break even hasn't quite happened yet. JET's just finished a massive wind down period after it's record break, however, and they're gearing up (slowly) towards another full power run. Apparently, those same 'extrapolated measurements' done on JET suggest the next time it's fired up properly, it might push past the break even point.

And, as somebody mentioned, ITER is also predicted to pass that point sometime around 2020.

It's also worth mentioning these experiments didn't actually run for very long. That peak power generation that nearly broke even also only lasted a couple of seconds. We're a long way off fusion being an economically viable, environmentally safe energy solution.

But it is coming. Slowly.

For the most part, they put the waste in water pools, as water is very good at containing radiation, and has the advantage of being see through and navigable. As opposed to putting it in concrete and crossing your fingers, unable to actually check.

Not exactly. The main use of water in a nuclear plant is as a means of heat exchange. Usually, it's part of the heat engine that generates the electricity, but in some cases it's also used for calling. This means that nuclear plants need a large supply of water, so they're often built by rivers or lakes. The problem is that the water returned to these systems is usually still very warm, and this has a massive effect on the river or lake. A common problem is the extra energy in the water overstimulates algae growth, which then consumes as much available oxygen as it can and chokes the river, potentially causing irreparable damage to the local ecosystem.

This is by far and away the biggest ecological impact of nuclear power, and goes sadly underdocumented. Contrary to popular belief, the fissile waste products aren't too difficult to deal with. Expensive, perhaps. But little enough waste material is produced, and it's radiological effects relatively easily contained that sticking in a big block of concrete and burying it is sufficient to avoid environmental issues.

The biggest issue is not what the nuclear waste is doing now, but the length of time it will be doing it, and the danger to anyone who digs it back up. When scientists talk about concerns over the long half-life of the waste products, this is what they're referring to, not the length of time the environment is affected by it.



With all that said, I'm massively pro-nuclear power. The science and engineering behind it has advanced a hell of a lot since the initial teething problems, and modern designs are crazy safe and efficient, with very few environmental or economic drawbacks (especially compared with the god awful fossil fuels we humans insist on using). Even the waterways issue I mentioned earlier can be avoided in several new(ish) designs that utilise other materials for cooling and heat exchange.

But I do understand people's hesitation over it. I'm massively for it because I'm read up on it. I understand how they work. Two years of A-level, three years of uni studying the broader subject has given me very good insight. But you simply can't expect everyone to to study the facts in such depth and then draw the right conclusion, nor should you expect people to just take such an important thing on faith.

The biggest challenge the nuclear industry faces is a marketing one: convincing people in a post-9/11, post-terrorism, post-Chernobyl world that humans in government (yes, those guys) can make these things run incident free. Enthusiasm for nuclear power is maybe one of the few things the fifties got right...

I wasn't talking about the reactor, but the waste. As far as I know, pool storage is still the standard.

 

[Benni88]

I'd rather anything than fossil fuels really. Nuclear is the most efficient for the current age, although the stigma associated with it has never really left.

 

[FireAza]

Nuclear is pretty awesome as far as power generation goes. It's VERY efficient, and unlike coal, it's waste product can be captured (nuclear power plants don't put out smoke like coal does). Obviously, the nuclear waste is a safety hazard, but at least it can be safely stored and modern reactor designs are able to produce less of it.

For now, nuclear is one of the best and most efficient forms of power generation, if only people weren't so scared of it. Babies.

 

[Henkie36]

I'm very much in the ''as long as we don't have anything better, it'll have to do''-camp. The ''something better'' would be nuclear fusion, but we are at least twenty years away from efficiently producing that on a commercial scale, so until then, I guess we are going to have to make do with the old fashioned nuclear powerplatnts.