Nuclear Power is not going away.......or is it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok, in light of the Fukashima plant in Japan near melt down conditions, there has been a ton of nuclear news, and most of it is has either been sensational, conflicting or ignorant. The amount of crap the press reports that makes me think they have no clue is about 70% of it.

We have heard that the plant was in total China Syndrome mode, and the truth is it is a serious issue, but short term and likely not life threatening unless you are the ones dealing with it up close. That is a sad tragedy, but in a nation that has probably 20000 people missing or dead, the death's of these brave souls trying to get this thing under control will be just more names on the list.

No, what I want to debate, is the pros and cons of nuclear power and talk about the reality that it is the best way of producing power that is "green" once you have maximized or dammed up all the watersources. Solar and Wind are great ideas but not practical in the large scale the way nuclear power is. Coal, Oil, and Gas are all used to produce power, but with the GWG theory of global warming, they are emitters. Nuclear is not.

Nuclear however, has its issues. It is horribly expensive to set up, with a lot of Environmental assessment issues and red tape. Fear of these plants wont be going away thanks to this mess with Fukashima.

That said, I live between two large Nuclear sites in Ontario. Pickering A and B are 4 reactor stations (8, 2 decommisioned, 6 operational ) and Darlington GS, with 4 more. CANDU reactors using heavy water for moderation of the reaction and to transfer the heat to the heat exchanger to make steam. The CANDU's use U238 in a purified form as fuel, not enriched, and the basic fuel pellets that go into the fuel bundles is at a very low level of radioactivity until it actually starts the fission process. You can literally hold the Uranium in your hand and not have anything close to any real issue for radiation. So it is a safe system, and it is designed to be refuelled on the fly, and to be shut down really quick in an emergency (the core can be emptied of the heavy water very quickly, and since it is required to keep the reaction going with this low level of uranium fuel, the reaction stops, almost assuring no real danger ever of a melt down). The protocols these plants have to conform to is outrageously complicated, and hence a very high cost to get them built BUT it is done for safety, and they seem to run 20 to 30 years without any major retooling or extensive maintenance.

So I feel safe. Since this province has 12 million people, and we get over half our power from nuclear power (8 reactors total, 2 more are at Kincardine ON on Lake Huron), we are married to this way of making electricity whether anyone likes it or not.

What say the rest of you? What do you fear or know about nuclear power as practiced in your countries and what are the issues?

[Mark]

Those campaigning for a big cut in CO2 emissions should be big supporters of nuclear power as this is the best way to go about it. But they tend to be the same people who campaign against both!

[markabilly]

who needs power, just head out to the hills of arkansaw and live off the land....

[BleAivano]

Nuclear (fission nuclear)Power is not going away.......or is it?

Imo it depends on if scientists can get (nuclear)fusion power to work and to be cost and energy efficient.

I saw a documentary about the HiPER project and i was really fascinated about it.
This type of fusion used deuterium (2H) and tritium (3H) which are two different versions
of hydrogen. These can be extracted from regular sea water and as we all know there is quite allot of sea water on our planet. But obviously there is still a long long way to go until the fusion is here.

until any possible fusionpower is available i dont think we have much choice but to continue with regular modern fission power. Only the most naive believe that wind and solar power can replace nuclear power.

During the past winter in Sweden, when the electricity was needed as the most during the very cold days that were around x-mas and new year. The wind power basically didn't generate any electricity at all. This is because the very cold weather were generated by an extensive high pressure which means very cold weather but also very calm conditions with almost no winds. The around 1100 windpower mills generated on average less then 40MW/day. The nuclear reactors on the other hand generated over 7000MW despite that some of the reactors were offline due to "maintenance".

[Mark]

Extradite from is easy to say. Hydrogen can be extracted from water but it takes electricity to do it!

[race aficionado]

It will go away once we realize how dangerous and damaging it is to us and our planet.

I'm no expert but I go with what I am seeing right now and with what I am learning about nuclear waste now that it is a 'hot" and "radioactive" topic.

No nukes damit!


mokin:

[Sonic]

Those campaigning for a big cut in CO2 emissions should be big supporters of nuclear power as this is the best way to go about it. But they tend to be the same people who campaign against both!

Amen! If you're going to campaign against something have a VIABLE alternative.

[Rollo]

Australia is a vast country full of nothing, has relatively few earthquakes because it sits squarely on a tectonic plate, and has an abudant supply of Uranium.

Australia is a perfect candidate for nuclear power and it's scanadlous that it doesn't already use it.

http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2011/03/...d-nuclear.html
The truth should bet staring us in the face. Australia suffers an earthquake actually on the continent as opposed to offshore roughly every 13 years and at an average of only 5.8333 on the Richter Scale. In contrast Japan in the past week has had more earthquakes of 6 and above than the entire of the records in Australia by nearly a factor of 90.
When it comes to earthquakes, Australia is ludicrously stable. I bet that you actually have more chance of being killed by a falling toilet, than ever feeling an earthquake in your life in Australia let alone actually being killed from it.
If that then is the main reason why we don't use nuclear power in Australia, it's a pretty pathetic one.
- Me, March 15, 2011

[Tazio]

The issue is (and I have not heard other voices state) having a proactive international organization that can differentiate between a legitimate efficient facility, producing large volumes of non-carbon, energy, and a sitting dirty bomb. This is not meant as a definition of Japans facilities. It is just this citizen’s belief that large utility companies are given too much latitude in policing themselves. Responsible citizens should have a clear understanding that there are areas of our planet where it is safer to accept something less than a carbon free fuel generating facility, and others that pose minimal risk to the environment where Fission is a very low risk form of generating electricity. I have stated earlier that I have one semester of college physics under my belt. It is hardly a credential, especially considering that that experience was in the fall semester of 1973. The reason I feel that that deserves mention is that I had a brilliant professor and at that time she suggested that Cold Fusion would very likely be available within 20 years. Almost 17 years past that prediction we are no closer to achieving any form of fusion due to the extreme amount of heat needed to manage something akin to fusion for a micro second. One thing that Chuck mentioned was what a shame it is that we abandoned a recycling of spent radioactive material. This discussion never gets very far because it is a polarizing issue from citizens that think it is more of important to people that know less than I do in this area (which is somewhere slightly above your average person that takes any interest in science). to repulse this subject, than letting it go. The last time I checked there was only one of these facilities and it is in France. The fact that The U.S. President that decided to defund it was a Certified Nuclear Generator Operator before he was a president. In case you don't know who I am referring to you are an active part of the problem. Having said that, and not wishing to antagonize anyone. If we can't get this done we really don't as a country deserve one. Perhaps Canadians are more politically responsible to maintain a facility as it is a huge money maker, while simultaneously being a tremendous responsibility. We are well into the 21st century. I think it is time to put aside stereotypes, and do what it is that may diminish the income of other forms of energy generation. This in my opinion needs to be a purpose driven endeavor, independent of any special interest. It is in the interest of all citizens

[markabilly]

The issue is (and I have not heard other voices state) having a proactive international organization that can differentiate between a legitimate efficient facility, producing large volumes of non-carbon, energy, and a sitting dirty bomb. This is not meant as a definition of Japans facilities. It is just this citizen’s belief that large utility companies are given too much latitude in policing themselves. Responsible citizens should have a clear understanding that there are areas of our planet where it is safer to accept something less than a carbon free fuel generating facility, and others that pose minimal risk to the environment where Fission is a very low risk form of generating electricity. I have stated earlier that I have one semester of college physics under my belt. It is hardly a credential, especially considering that that experience was in the fall semester of 1973. The reason I feel that that deserves mention is that I had a brilliant professor and at that time she suggested that Cold Fusion would very likely be available within 20 years. Almost 17 years past that prediction we are no closer to achieving any form of fusion due to the extreme amount of heat needed to manage something akin to fusion for a micro second. One thing that Chuck mentioned was what a shame it is that we abandoned a recycling of spent radioactive material. This discussion never gets very far because it is a polarizing issue from citizens that think it is more of important to people that know less than I do in this area (which is somewhere slightly above your average person that takes any interest in science). to repulse this subject, than letting it go. The last time I checked there was only one of these facilities and it is in France. The fact that The U.S. President that decided to defund it was a Certified Nuclear Generator Operator before he was a president. In case you don't know who I am referring to you are an active part of the problem. Having said that, and not wishing to antagonize anyone. If we can't get this done we really don't as a country deserve one. Perhaps Canadians are more politically responsible to maintain a facility as it is a huge money maker, while simultaneously being a tremendous responsibility. We are well into the 21st century. I think it is time to put aside stereotypes, and do what it is that may diminish the income of other forms of energy generation. This in my opinion needs to be a purpose driven endeavor, independent of any special interest. It is in the interest of all citizens

must be back on the kool aid, cause you now talk a little sense. The prez was jimmy C.

Some day fusion may be the econmic reality that will leave these middle eastern types blowing sand in the wind, to say nothing of big oil.....but till then.....

I wonder how I can get Dunnel off his soap box and saddle him up to do some frontline, point of the spear ground work in Libya?