Nuclear power, yay or nay?
- Thread starter rednose1
- Start date
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 Only outdated facilities are dangerous, and by ignoring what we have, we're allowing plants to fall apart.
We're so close He3. Only outdated facilities are dangerous, and by ignoring what we have, we're allowing plants to fall apart.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How are they safer? This is a weak claim without evidence.Ultratwinkie said:
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?
On the subject of 'toxic waste', it should also be said that much of the excess is itself potential fuel intended for reactors that have never been built. The plan had always been to expand the nuclear program, but societal panic put an effective stop to it after Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island and the film 'The China Syndrome'. Without the new reactors to feed, the old reactors had nowhere to send their output for processing at the rate they'd been expected to. And so, waste builds up.
Nor are most other forms of energy production genuinely free from some form of undesirable waste, either in fabrication or process. Setting aside the potential environmental effects of altering the wind cycle by capturing a significant cross section of it's energy, even wind generators suffer catastrophic mechanical failures that endanger life, property and infrastructure. Solar systems often entail the use of materials that are outright toxic, including cadmium and arsenic which are eventually released back into the environment at the end of a given panels useful life cycle.
I won't belabor the point, as my purpose is not to advocate nuclear power to the exclusion of green energy, but to highlight the inescapable fact that no matter what roads we take there are attendant hazards and costs which must be handled with care and responsibility. There are no perfect solutions in this space, only effective ones which meet the needs of our species and it's environment.
On the subject of nuclear fuel 'adding' free (that is, loose, running about) energy in the form of waste heat to the earth, that's happening anyway. Nuclear materials don't just sit cold until we refine them, it constantly radiates some amount of heat until a given mass is sufficiently reduced to lead as to no longer be radioactive. Additionally, there is evidence in the geological record of naturally occurring nuclear reactors and detonations. So refraining from harnessing it doesn't really seem to help us on that score. As part of the geocycle nuclear material will be contributing, one way or another, to the heat of the earth until it's all burned out. Moreover, unless it is accounted for, it poses a constant potential threat. What you don't know can hurt you.
While the failures of nuclear programs are certainly dramatic in the public eye, they are also poorly understood and largely overblown. One might, not unfairly, say that one cannot be too cautious with the use of nuclear material, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to succumb to hyperbole and terror. Neurotic paranoia and due caution aren't the same thing. Especially if the only viable solutions we can think of are to either leash the tiger or lock it in the closet and hope for the best.
I really don't see the latter working for us in the long run, any better than it did at Fukushima Daiichi. I won't dig into a litany of TEPCO's sins tonight, but they seem to have spent some time developing a reputation for hiding their problems rather than dealing with them. That's not a healthy attitude to adopt in any field, let alone a nuclear one.
Nor are most other forms of energy production genuinely free from some form of undesirable waste, either in fabrication or process. Setting aside the potential environmental effects of altering the wind cycle by capturing a significant cross section of it's energy, even wind generators suffer catastrophic mechanical failures that endanger life, property and infrastructure. Solar systems often entail the use of materials that are outright toxic, including cadmium and arsenic which are eventually released back into the environment at the end of a given panels useful life cycle.
I won't belabor the point, as my purpose is not to advocate nuclear power to the exclusion of green energy, but to highlight the inescapable fact that no matter what roads we take there are attendant hazards and costs which must be handled with care and responsibility. There are no perfect solutions in this space, only effective ones which meet the needs of our species and it's environment.
On the subject of nuclear fuel 'adding' free (that is, loose, running about) energy in the form of waste heat to the earth, that's happening anyway. Nuclear materials don't just sit cold until we refine them, it constantly radiates some amount of heat until a given mass is sufficiently reduced to lead as to no longer be radioactive. Additionally, there is evidence in the geological record of naturally occurring nuclear reactors and detonations. So refraining from harnessing it doesn't really seem to help us on that score. As part of the geocycle nuclear material will be contributing, one way or another, to the heat of the earth until it's all burned out. Moreover, unless it is accounted for, it poses a constant potential threat. What you don't know can hurt you.
While the failures of nuclear programs are certainly dramatic in the public eye, they are also poorly understood and largely overblown. One might, not unfairly, say that one cannot be too cautious with the use of nuclear material, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to succumb to hyperbole and terror. Neurotic paranoia and due caution aren't the same thing. Especially if the only viable solutions we can think of are to either leash the tiger or lock it in the closet and hope for the best.
I really don't see the latter working for us in the long run, any better than it did at Fukushima Daiichi. I won't dig into a litany of TEPCO's sins tonight, but they seem to have spent some time developing a reputation for hiding their problems rather than dealing with them. That's not a healthy attitude to adopt in any field, let alone a nuclear one.
