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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

True - but the fact is that other ways for reliable energy sources have to be found and I am one of those that believes that Nuclear is not the way to go and that humanity, if allowed, will find a better safer way.
:s mokin:

---

I may not entirely agree with you, but I have great respect for this opinion, and hope — perhaps against hope — that it prevails eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Fact:
Western nations, i.e. North American and Europe are by far the largest per-capita consumers of natural resources, including energy.

Fact:
Nuclear fission is the only viable energy source capable of sustaining the world’s continually growing demand for electricity. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source that are being quickly depleted, and as has been mentioned, solar and wind simply are woefully inadequate and unreliable.-BS there is plenty of coal. Oil- easy oil- is running out there is more than enough out there.
The "experts" say it is depleting and they do not even know where it comes from.-- "The rent is too damn high!'

Fact:
When all is considered, the long-term cost of electricity produced from nuclear fission on a $ per kilowatt-hour basis, is comparable with coal-fired production.-- Except for those nasty left over rods.

Fact:
Over the last ~50 years there have been far more human deaths and long-term health issues due to exploiting fossil fuels than nuclear energy production.- since man started burning coal etc., etc. Are you waiting for nuclear to catch up?

---

Nukes are fine, if a war never starts
Of course no reasonable enemy would take away its foes power supply, they will just let those nuke plants keep on humming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

See, this is where I am reminded that "expert" comments like this one just demonstrate the ignorance related to this topic, specially when the answer given is ended with the "not exacly difficult" comment.

I am no expert either but given the scientific facts given in terms of the storage life of such polluting and extremely dangerous nuclear waste being stored in, and I quote:
"Adequate underground storage facilities" - how can this be said after what we have just witnessed in terms of natural disasters occurring in our planet?
Yeah, sure, place these adequate underground storage facilities in non earthquake areas but what guarantee do you really have? We are playing with dynamite here . . . no wait, we are playing with radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants with one of the by-products, plutonium 239, that has a half-life of 24,100 years.
What does that mean? That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations? That's a lot of generations and an extremely irresponsible scenario.

That's my opinion - go ahead and have yours but we are all sharing this planet and I for one will do my part so that this adequate underground solution of yours will not be part of my child's future.
:s mokin:

---

We clearly have differing ideas of what an adequate underground storage facility is. I'm not talking about a subsurface bunker.

There are shafts of up to 1km deep being dug with chambers for plutonium storage. If there is an earthquake or some other disaster then the shaft may become unusable for further disposal but the plutonium already dumped there will not come up to the surface.

If some untoward event happens strong enough to push the plutonium to the surface from that depth then I suggest that it would be of such magnitude that radioactive contamination would be pretty far down the list of what you should be worried about.

As others have said though, the volume of plutonium waste can be reduced via recycling fuel rods. That too can help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I may not entirely agree with you, but I have great respect for this opinion, and hope — perhaps against hope — that it prevails eventually.

---

I have no problem with the anti-nuclear brigade but I do believe that they should use real arguments with a scientific basis behind them, something they are too often lacking in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

So you are not bothered with this either? Too sensationalist?

---

Ummm yeah, it is too sensationalist. We have plenty of ways of dealing with the waste. Storing the spent fuel in on-site pools seems to work fairly well in all cases except where you have a 10meter wall of water come and wash away all power to the cooling pumps. But things could be done to prevent that as well.

Here's some Wiki links (ie simple) for you to get some background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_M...ste_repository
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

Are they fool-proof? No, but what in this world is? Are you going to make me go dig up cases of deaths/injuries related to wind-mills and the like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

True - but the fact is that other ways for reliable energy sources have to be found and I am one of those that believes that Nuclear is not the way to go and that humanity, if allowed, will find a better safer way.
:s mokin:

---

If humanity comes up with a better safer and cheaper way to produce energy, I'm on board. I'll be the first one there pushing for it's adoption. But until then I want my fridge to stay on, and the lights to work when I flip the switch. And that includes times when it's dark out and the wind isn't blowing. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Ummm yeah, it is too sensationalist. We have plenty of ways of dealing with the waste. Storing the spent fuel in on-site pools seems to work fairly well in all cases except where you have a 10meter wall of water come and wash away all power to the cooling pumps. But things could be done to prevent that as well.

Here's some Wiki links (ie simple) for you to get some background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_M...ste_repository
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

Are they fool-proof? No, but what in this world is? Are you going to make me go dig up cases of deaths/injuries related to wind-mills and the like?

---

No Chuck, no need to google more stuff and I don't want to be made a fool of when I am shown the amount of beheaded creatures due to loose wind mills. :dozey:

Looking at your links where storage plans are shown, I, me, myself . . . . shudder with the thought of nuclear waste stored in a place where it will take 241,000 years - scientifically speaking - to no longer be a deadly threat to any living creature in this planet of ours.

let's agree to disagree.
:s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

Looking at your links where storage plans are shown, I, me, myself . . . . shudder with the thought of nuclear waste stored in a place where it will take 241,000 years - scientifically speaking - to no longer be a deadly threat to any living creature in this planet of ours.

---

Ok let's just say for a second that tomorrow we perfect cold fusion, rendering fission reactors obsolete over-night. Now, what do we do with all the "deadly threats"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

let's agree to disagree.
:s mokin:

---

I agree that we don't see eye to eye on this. But I'm here for a bit of a diversion from my "everyday" life. Therefore I like to debate people with different views on things. I learn quite a bit by doing that actually. I know I'm a geek, I find fun in learning. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I know I'm a geek, I find fun in learning.

---

I'm glad you mentioned that. The first time I read your signature I knew you were a nerd.
And by the almighty there is nothing wrong with that! I think chicks dig it BTW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

We clearly have differing ideas of what an adequate underground storage facility is. I'm not talking about a subsurface bunker.

There are shafts of up to 1km deep being dug with chambers for plutonium storage. If there is an earthquake or some other disaster then the shaft may become unusable for further disposal but the plutonium already dumped there will not come up to the surface.

If some untoward event happens strong enough to push the plutonium to the surface from that depth then I suggest that it would be of such magnitude that radioactive contamination would be pretty far down the list of what you should be worried about.


As others have said though, the volume of plutonium waste can be reduced via recycling fuel rods. That too can help.

---

How long has the debate been going on over Yucca mountain? That still isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.


I'm not against nuclear energy, but I'm not necessisarily an outright advocate either. Either way, it's a way of life around here. It certainly has very real undisputable potential dangers. I've got a large hydroelectric facility 5 miles upstream and another about 20 or so but it only supplies a small fraction of the electricity. We've got two gas fired turbine plants within 10 miles, but most signigicantly, by my count just off of the top of my head, I have 18 active nuclear reactors within a 100 mile radius of my home, 10 of those are within 30 miles, 6 of them are active and directly upstream on the susquehanna river with two them just 10 miles up-stream in our primary and only drinking water supply. We were evacuated and under watch for a long time after TMI, and we have regular warnings and alerts from Peach Bottom as part of our regular emergency warning systems. It's simply a part of life around here. We're absolutely aware of the dangers, but the fact is, I don't live my life in fear of another nuclear accident, and I've actually lived through the only major incident in US history. We're not in an area with any sort of significant earthquake danger, hurricane damage while fairly common, is generally only a cat 1 threat. River flooding is a potential issue but that doesn't truly pose any risk of catastrophic flooding. Tsunamis could possibly be an issue at 8 of them since those are close to the atlantic or the Chesapeake or Delaware Bays.

I accept the risk, but I'm also a strong advocate of clean power options like hydroelectric and wind energy. It may be more expensive absent government subsidies, but every power decision can't be exclusively financial. The lack of potential risk far outweighs the potential for even a partial release of radiation from a nuclear plant, but it simply isn't a viable option everywhere. To be honest, we worry more about a dam collapse than a nuclear incident, and the nuclear plant is on the lake behind the dam.