Nuclear power, yay or nay?

[generals3]

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.

Fusion materials are also finite (while the stock is high Lithium-6 doesn't have an infinite supply) so that argument doesn't really work for a pro-fusion and anti-fission stance. Let's also not forget Fission isn't limited to Uranium and MOX. China is looking into Thorium fission(which exists in a much higher quantity than Uranium).

And you may be correct it's moving from one addiction to another but isn't another addiction better if it's less harmful?

I'm a New Zealander so my opinion is automatically against. However, if the problem of waste could be lessened (thorium reactors) or negated (nuclear fusion) I likely would have less of a problem with it.

Actually fusion also creates waste. There is much less waste and it's short-living waste, sure, but there is still nuclear waste.

 

[Bruce]

Nay-be?

Well mantained nuclear is actually safer and cleaner than coal, the trouble is even Japan couldn't guarantee that (The Fukushima plant had been in the news prior to the earthquake that popped its lid for having a poor maintenance record and springing leaks, the quake was likely the straw that broke the camels back IMO) so I tend to err on the side of against. The human factor, with long term issues like budget cuts and just not giving a damn, is just too much of a risk.

 

[Idlemessiah]

Nuclear plants over fossil fuels any day. However, I live in the UK and it beggars me why we aren't running on tidal energy already. We're on a frigging island! As a matter of fact, anywhere in Britain you are never more than 70 miles from the sea.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Fusion materials are also finite (while the stock is high Lithium-6 doesn't have an infinite supply) so that argument doesn't really work for a pro-fusion and anti-fission stance. Let's also not forget Fission isn't limited to Uranium and MOX. China is looking into Thorium fission(which exists in a much higher quantity than Uranium).

And you may be correct it's moving from one addiction to another but isn't another addiction better if it's less harmful?

I was talking about Thorium reactors when I said Breeder Reactors were a band-aid, you still need heavy elements like U235 or Plutonium to achieve a reaction and start creating fissile material to generate energy, which in turn still leaves the whole "where do we stick this crap" afterwards. (Admittedly it isn't as bad as current reactor designs)

Actually fusion also creates waste. There is much less waste and it's short-living waste, sure, but there is still nuclear waste.

Yes, 100 years of moderate radioactivity and 300 to become completely inert is just as bad as 10000+ years.

 

[Nemu]

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).

I would like to preface this by saying that I'm incredibly biased here, because I literally live across the road from VY.
I am TOTALLY worried about what I am going to do in 2 years, because I will NOT be able to afford to live where I do, as I expect my property taxes to go up at least 300%, and with this news, my property value will likely go WAY down (tho it could go either way, really).


I don't really have a problem with nuclear power per say, but there is an obvious problem of disposal-what to do with what we have now and what will continue to be produced is a HUGE issue. Nuke energy is still safer than coal power, but I hesitate to suggest that natural gas is better as I am admittedly ignorant with it as a fuel form (ie: how much there is, how to channel it, etc) as a replacement.


I am HOPING that the state takes care of us in the area of VY and installs solar panels or wind turbines, in order to generate[footnote]For lack of a better term[/footnote] income, otherwise the area is in for some hard times. I wish the protesters that worked so hard AGAINST VY would stick around and work to come up with a solution to replace it. This closing will be a BIG hit to the community, and neighboring states, financially, economically, socially--lots of people are going to lose their jobs which, in turn, means people will shop less, move away, create more strain on an already exhausted job market and state/federal aid packages.

 

[generals3]

Fusion materials are also finite (while the stock is high Lithium-6 doesn't have an infinite supply) so that argument doesn't really work for a pro-fusion and anti-fission stance. Let's also not forget Fission isn't limited to Uranium and MOX. China is looking into Thorium fission(which exists in a much higher quantity than Uranium).

And you may be correct it's moving from one addiction to another but isn't another addiction better if it's less harmful?

I was talking about Thorium reactors when I said Breeder Reactors were a band-aid, you still need heavy elements like U235 or Plutonium to achieve a reaction and start creating fissile material to generate energy, which in turn still leaves the whole "where do we stick this crap" afterwards. (Admittedly it isn't as bad as current reactor designs)

Well the best thorium reactor would be a liquid salt one. The amount of Uranium needed is little (and you can use Uranium 233 which doesn't produce plutonium when used in the reactor) and there is less waste than in your typical Uranium reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBIyZZuQl4A

Actually fusion also creates waste. There is much less waste and it's short-living waste, sure, but there is still nuclear waste.

Yes, 100 years of moderate radioactivity and 300 to become completely inert is just as bad as 10000+ years.

And I have never said it was so I don't see the point of that reply. It implies I made a statement i clearly did not.

 

[Blue_vision]

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.

Actually, nuclear power isn't a very good backup for renewable energy. Nuclear power plants take a long time (a couple days) to ramp up production, meaning you can't increase capacity on the fly when your renewables stop producing electricity.

Also, nuclear power is pretty expensive, and people seem to forget that the construction of the reactors takes up a loooooot of concrete, which means a ton of CO2 in construction. They still end up being less intensive in CO2 production than other fossil fuels, and way safer, but they do have lots of downsides.

 

[Cpu46]

Depends, Uranium reactors? strictly for the birds, we only went with them in the first place to get weapons grade waste.

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors on the other had have few of the risks associated with uranium reactors and a much more plentiful resource.

YES, finally someone else who knows of the LFTR.

I did a research project on those for my final project of my Energy Management course in college. The history of those infuriated me to no end. Such a promising energy source completely sidelined due to the fact that we couldn't make bombs with it.

OP: My answer is pretty much what Hoplon said. We need LFTRs yesterday.

 

[Esotera]

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.

Actually, nuclear power isn't a very good backup for renewable energy. Nuclear power plants take a long time (a couple days) to ramp up production, meaning you can't increase capacity on the fly when your renewables stop producing electricity.

Also, nuclear power is pretty expensive, and people seem to forget that the construction of the reactors takes up a loooooot of concrete, which means a ton of CO2 in construction. They still end up being less intensive in CO2 production than other fossil fuels, and way safer, but they do have lots of downsides.

If you can predict weather over a couple of days then you can still use nuclear to meet demand. For short-term power you'd definitely need something a bit more like a traditional power station that can be turned on and off relatively quickly. That said, nuclear wouldn't be my first choice of power generation in the UK, I'd focus most on tidal power as it's very reliable and we have a lot of ocean surrounding us. And for the backup scenario a biofuel plant or traditional fossil fuel power station would be a better choice...but I'm not against it in principle. We'll need to use many different methods of energy generation to achieve a low carbon economy.

 

[RicoADF]

The waste it gives off isn't worth it, personally I'd say nay to nuclear (atleast current types) of reactors. I prefer Solar, Wind etc, especially here in Australia where we have massive land masses that a solar plant farm could be built with room to spare.

 

[conmag9]

I'm on the pro side. Enormous amounts of power, and while the waste is certainly a problem, it's much better to have a (relatively, compared to fossil fuels) small amount of waste you can contain than a whole lot of it you just spew into the atmosphere. If we had more of them producing enough power to meet our needs, we could then devote time to either renewable resources or ironing out the kinks in fusion power (which would be awesome, as fusion materials are SO much easier to come by).

 

[Blue_vision]

If you can predict weather over a couple of days then you can still use nuclear to meet demand. For short-term power you'd definitely need something a bit more like a traditional power station that can be turned on and off relatively quickly. That said, nuclear wouldn't be my first choice of power generation in the UK, I'd focus most on tidal power as it's very reliable and we have a lot of ocean surrounding us. And for the backup scenario a biofuel plant or traditional fossil fuel power station would be a better choice...but I'm not against it in principle. We'll need to use many different methods of energy generation to achieve a low carbon economy.

Yep. And for places where there's very high electricity demand or not a lot of easily accessible renewable energy sources, nuclear power is great. People just need to stop acting as though we'll have one source of energy that'll be good for the entire world.

 

[Hoplon]

Depends, Uranium reactors? strictly for the birds, we only went with them in the first place to get weapons grade waste.

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors on the other had have few of the risks associated with uranium reactors and a much more plentiful resource.

YES, finally someone else who knows of the LFTR.

I did a research project on those for my final project of my Energy Management course in college. The history of those infuriated me to no end. Such a promising energy source completely sidelined due to the fact that we couldn't make bombs with it.

OP: My answer is pretty much what Hoplon said. We need LFTRs yesterday.

The lecture I watched on it also suggested that most of the nuclear waste we have now could be burnt in them as needs some extra neutrons to get going.

Which is awesome.

 

[triggrhappy94]

YES! Please.

We're so close He3. Only outdated facilities are dangerous, and by ignoring what we have, we're allowing plants to fall apart.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

I'm surprised that so many people are, "It's SAFE AND CLEAN!" mode right now.

Especially in light of the fact that we are now aware that the actual damage by Fukushima was worse than anticipated and there is currently a giant cloud of radioactive materials being released that will be observable in the Pacific Ocean for decades.

It's all well and good to say that in nuclear power if every thing goes fine, it'll be perfect. 'Cause welcome to the real world. Human error is entirely a thing.

That being said, I'm very "meh" on nuclear. It's important to not just take scientific discoveries at face value and to actually look critically at them. Nuclear reactors have a LOT of very significant drawbacks. Especially fission reactors.

There are other very viable alternative energy sources which, while less impressive and currently financially difficult, could be brought to market under the funding that nuclear research gets. Solar, wind, tidal. There's quite a bit. All with their own unique drawbacks and limitations. But it's better not to put all your eggs in one basket. Especially if that basket has a chance of leaking enough radiation to alter an ocean.

 

[Kinitawowi]

Put me in the "yay" camp.

The thing about nuclear power is tha while people are scared of it because Chernobyl and Fukushima and the mere word "nuclear" automatically sends people to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the reality is that there is so much discussion and debate and care taken over the topic now that building a new nuclear plant wouldn't be done unless its safety and security could be guaranteed.

I loved reading about things like Yucca Mountain; the whole "This Place Is Not A Place Of Honor [http://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor/]" thing was an incredible and fascinating concept both in terms of its practicality (hell, we built the Svalbard Seed Vault somewhere that'll be tectonically safe for millennia, surely we can do something with nuclear waste) and its philosophies, of how to communicate with distant cultures.

You don't get this sort of discussion with solar or wind; it's just "YAY RENEWABLE, LET'S BUILD THIS SHIT EVERYWHERE" as if coating the planet with solar panels and wind farms is a total solution. Storage is hard and the sun doesn't shine when most people want their power at night; wind is random. In Britain, we have a hydroelectric power plant called Dinorwig that exists solely to cover the entire population deciding to make tea when Eastenders finishes. That's it. That's what it's for. The National Grid employ guys whose job is to keep the load acrosss the entire country balanced, by starting up Dinorwig and other emergency plants like it and other cross-continental links, to make sure the system doesn't spike or drop out. Wind just isn't reliable enough to stick with.

And we have to get off fossil fuels. That's obviously non-sustainable, although the electric car (for any meaningful journey) is still too far away.

This pretty much leaves nuclear. We can do it. We can do it right. But the peanut gallery won't let it happen. This isn't just NIMBYism, this is Not In Anyone's Back Yard.

 

[Daverson]

So, nuclear power is "dangerous", you say?

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED

Coal (elect, heat,cook ?world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity ? world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)? China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal ? USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

[Source] [http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html]

Yes, you read that right, nuclear power is a whole order of magnitude safer than any other power source.

 

[Wyes]

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.

Very much this, I'm afraid.

 

[Nexxis]

While I like the energy benefits of a nuclear power plant, I don't like the inherent dangers that come with it. There is never a little "oops" when it comes to these things and, since they're run by people and computers designed by people, there will most certainly be an accident of some kind, and that concerns me. The spent fuel from the thing brings its own hazards to the table.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

I'm surprised that so many people are, "It's SAFE AND CLEAN!" mode right now.

Especially in light of the fact that we are now aware that the actual damage by Fukushima was worse than anticipated and there is currently a giant cloud of radioactive materials being released that will be observable in the Pacific Ocean for decades.

It's all well and good to say that in nuclear power if every thing goes fine, it'll be perfect. 'Cause welcome to the real world. Human error is entirely a thing.

That being said, I'm very "meh" on nuclear. It's important to not just take scientific discoveries at face value and to actually look critically at them. Nuclear reactors have a LOT of very significant drawbacks. Especially fission reactors.

There are other very viable alternative energy sources which, while less impressive and currently financially difficult, could be brought to market under the funding that nuclear research gets. Solar, wind, tidal. There's quite a bit. All with their own unique drawbacks and limitations. But it's better not to put all your eggs in one basket. Especially if that basket has a chance of leaking enough radiation to alter an ocean.

Generation II reactor.

We are at Generation IV. We have the safest reactors ever, with computers and engineering marvels to boot.

Pointing to Fukishima or Chernobyl is like pointing to the Magnesium engine fires of old cars as the reason modern cars are a bad idea.

How are they safer? This is a weak claim without evidence.

Not to mention we haven't *finished* the new generation yet. As of now, most new plants entering are Generation III and there are still many Generation IIs operating.

Why not look into other options?