The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Nuclear Energy and You: Why Not?
FirstComradeStalin
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Welcome to the world of nuclear energy. This is a nuclear power plant:
As the nuclear powers have begun to extend nuclear energy to India, I have to wonder, what's holding back further proliferation of nuclear power plants in the US? Or even in other parts of the world? Why isn't it the cornerstone of clean-energy policy everywhere? Of course, there are a few issues.
Firstly, nuclear fuel is also a finite resource. Still, waste can be reprocessed to minimize impact and squeeze life out of the fuel we have now. Some estimates place the number at maybe 50 years, some go farther. The numbers are debatable (and are part of what will be the discussion here).
There's also the problem of nuclear waste. This is nuclear waste:
This one is somewhat tough. What are we supposed to do with this? How can we be sure to contain it properly so that it doesn't seep into groundwater or something similar?
Third, there's the issue of a nuclear meltdown. This is Chernobyl:
Let's just say that shit fucked up. But was Chernobyl essentially a disaster that was really a testament to the ineptness of the Soviet state, or a real possibility even with all the safeguards we have today? Was Three-Mile Island even worth mentioning, or was it just a bunch of idiotic alarmism?
Fourth, there's the issue of where to put a nuclear reactor. People don't like having a big radioactive building in their backyard. But is it so hard in the US, still a relatively uncrowded country by most standards, to find somewhere so unpopulated you could just pay off the few people that live there, or are willing to allow a reactor because it'd bring an economic boost to their town?
So those are our discussion points. What is keeping nuclear energy from proliferating within states in which it already exists, particularly the US? Should it proliferate at all? Is it feasible to create a majority of our electricity using nuclear energy?
Also, is nuclear fusion possible?
As the nuclear powers have begun to extend nuclear energy to India, I have to wonder, what's holding back further proliferation of nuclear power plants in the US? Or even in other parts of the world? Why isn't it the cornerstone of clean-energy policy everywhere? Of course, there are a few issues.
Firstly, nuclear fuel is also a finite resource. Still, waste can be reprocessed to minimize impact and squeeze life out of the fuel we have now. Some estimates place the number at maybe 50 years, some go farther. The numbers are debatable (and are part of what will be the discussion here).
There's also the problem of nuclear waste. This is nuclear waste:
This one is somewhat tough. What are we supposed to do with this? How can we be sure to contain it properly so that it doesn't seep into groundwater or something similar?
Third, there's the issue of a nuclear meltdown. This is Chernobyl:
Let's just say that shit fucked up. But was Chernobyl essentially a disaster that was really a testament to the ineptness of the Soviet state, or a real possibility even with all the safeguards we have today? Was Three-Mile Island even worth mentioning, or was it just a bunch of idiotic alarmism?
Fourth, there's the issue of where to put a nuclear reactor. People don't like having a big radioactive building in their backyard. But is it so hard in the US, still a relatively uncrowded country by most standards, to find somewhere so unpopulated you could just pay off the few people that live there, or are willing to allow a reactor because it'd bring an economic boost to their town?
So those are our discussion points. What is keeping nuclear energy from proliferating within states in which it already exists, particularly the US? Should it proliferate at all? Is it feasible to create a majority of our electricity using nuclear energy?
Also, is nuclear fusion possible?
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Posts
We subsidize the hell out of construction and socialize most all of the risk for companies, but they still don't want to put up because they work in reverse when compared to other power plants. Coal or nat gas plants are cheaper than hell to build, but expensive to run. Nuclear is sticker shock to the extreme to build, and then low cost to keep it going. Now that cost/kWh has increased that has made them more attractive, and we're going to have a dozen of them start up rather soon. The NRC has streamlined some of its regulations and standardization has taken over the industry in comparison to the bespoke designs of earlier generation plants. As far as NIMBY, you can put several new reactors at existing plants without any real concern since it's already there and nobody's going to be opposed to one extra cooling tower when it means more jobs in the area.
Personally I wish we'd double up the amount of nukes we have in the area. Illinois is 50% nuclear (most in the nation), 50% coal. So on average we still suck. Putting up some windmills down state in the plains and farm fields and replacing the coal fire plants with some more nukes and nat gas emergency brown out relief plants would be great. Too bad it likely isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Aquifers could be contaminated. But really we just need to permit breeder reactors to be used and that cuts the dangerous half life down to like 1 or 2 centuries rather than millenia so storage isn't as big an issue. We can guard shit for a couple centuries since the US government is likely still going to exist. 4560...not so sure.
???
Also, don't some of the estimates using breeder reactors and tungsten or whatever go up to "all of the human race's energy needs for the forseeable future" ?
Pebble Bed Reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactors
Differing type of reactor, with different ups and downs. The up is they don't explode no matter how retarded you are.
Several centuries are covered, even when assuming everyone on the planet lives like an American. So it's a pretty good stopgap until we can get solar up to snuff.
1. We can get a real estimate on how long this shit could last. 50 years? Not worth it in my opinion, we're better off moving on to other things.
2. We find a way to deal with the spent fuel/waste. And Yucca Mountain doesn't count - how do they deal with spent fuel in Europe?
We've got the mutant vote.
But in all seriousness, we are starting to expand our nuclear capacity and you can only do that so fast before we run out of people who know what they're doing. McCain's desire is way beyond what we are capable of right now it's almost funny. I wish the number of applicants to the NRC was larger than it is, but a dozen new reactors in as many years is a pretty good start.
2) Nuclear waste is bad, but would be significantly less bad (but still bad!) if we started building breeder reactors. The only reason we don't already have breeder reactors is Jimmy Carter and hysterical '70s attitudes towards nuclear power.
3) Chernobyl melted down because the inept commie running it thought he was Dr. Frankenstein and deliberately shut down all the safety measures while doing one of his own "experiments". Regardless, modern reactor designs are physically unable to melt down, as has already been noted.
4) NIMBY is a bunch of fucking shit and is hindering our progress as a civilization.
Did I miss anything?
I mean look at the test video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_JhruRobRI
and then after that they burned it with jet fuel and still nothing happened! You'd have to nuke it to crack that thing open, and even if you do the solid waste won't do anything bad in the short term and is really easy to locate.
Yucca Mountain is bad because that "waste" still has a fuck-tonne of energy in it. Current reactors use something like 1% of the energy in the fuel, then throw the fuel out. Breeder reactors can use something like 99.5%, and the waste produced at the end of the cycle decays in 200 years, not 10,000. If we interr our waste at Yucca Mountain, we'll be mining the damn place within a couple hundred years.
They send it to Yucca Mountain.
So build those reactors transfer some of the waste that's waiting to go to Yucca (since the place won't be opened till ... I forget 2050 or something) and use it, but after that there will still be solid waste that will go to Yucca.
Sure, sure. I'm just saying don't make it too hard to get the "waste" out of there, because if we get our collective heads out of our asses on breeder reactors, there will come a time when it will be cheaper to withdraw uranium-heavy "waste" from Yucca than to mine new ore.
Otherwise I'm fairly cool with nuclear plants, so long as they are properly maintained.
Which is another very good reason to keep the stuff accessible so you can keep an eye on it.
France uses nuclear for more than 85% of their power production, and they're more or less energy independent because of it.
Wait, how is waste stored in Yucca not accessible now? It's not like they're chucking them into a big pile down there or something. In any event, we make Breeders and the waste only has to be watched for a couple centuries after we shift from nuclear to straight up renewables.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Was that a rocket powered train? :shock:
The earthquake risk is minimal. The whole area is tectonically stable. They picked it for a pretty good reason.
Yucca Mountain: The most catastrophically boring fucking place in the world.
It's like the polar opposite of Wichita Falls.
I was listening to a guy talk about solar energy on NPR, and he said that if all the solar panels we have were able to harness 90% of the energy inherent in the sun's rays reaching the Earth's surface, we could meet the current national demand for energy entirely.
Whatever solution we decide to take, the human race has historically shown that it's remarkably good at adapting to survival when it's forced to.
I'm for nuclear power and storing spent waste under Yucca Mountain. I'm not sure about breeder reactors though. They're fine if you say they can extract 99.5% of the energy contained within (which I don't really believe without some source) and that they are inert in 200 years (which I really don't believe, also, no source). The problem, however, is with nuclear proliferation. Yeah, the US and other NATO won't build new nukes with all the nasty leftovers, nor will they build "dirty bombs" which would take full advantage of these leftovers. But, guess what, terrorists will. It's not the technical issues with the spent waste, it's the human ones. The last thing you want is someone stealing some spent nuclear fuel and using it against us. If there's anything Jurassic Park has taught us, is that some fat bastard will eventually fuck everything up.
How much nuclear waste is this breeder reactor producing? Volume/mass wise. Any chance of us being able to shoot it off into space a la Futurama?
Renewable energy sources simply don't produce the amount of power we need. Nuclear power will play a critical role in providing power as we transition away from our diminishing supplies of fossil fuels, as it is the only power source we have ready to provide the kind of power we need on a reasonable timescale with a reasonable price tag.
The problem is, using heavy hydrogen doesn't provide you with the nuclear waste needed to make bombs. This is why Iran got cockblocked from having a reactor.
"Hey guys, can we get permission to build a nuclear reactor?"
"Sure we'll bring the Canadians to help you out. Where do you want it?"
"Actually we were thinking American."
".... wait, I thought you just wanted nuclear energ--"
"Nevermind."
Which is why people tend to have guards at nuclear plants. Not to mention the fact that no state would allow nuclear materials to get into the hands of terrorists out of fear of being glassed. This isn't to say that a power plant going up in Damascus is the bestest idea ever, but I wouldn't be too concerned about that. The biggest risk with loose nukes at the moment is Russia, and they've got a pretty good handle on things.
No, we will not be shooting waste of any kind into space.
Does the space shuttle count?
The thing you have to remember is that whilst anti-nuclear campaigners are more froth in the mouth than logical arguments a lot of Europe got fallout from Chernobyl. Therefore it has coloured peoples opinions on it quite a bit.
The moment you mention the word nuclear people have it associated with bad, regardless that every process is nuclear when you get down to the basics of it all.
What I'm really looking forward to (and hoping) is that ITER and Polywell get some results asap. Ultimately whilst the coming energy crisis approaches, it is making people look at nuclear fission I'd much rather we went with fusion because ultimately it will cost a whole hell of a lot less and have none of the really big problems that fission does.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
At least, not on a regular basis.
Also Captain Planet says nuclear power is evil and he's like a Captain so he knows what he's talking about.