Science & Technology

Rave

Nuclear Power: Power of the Present

Posted 37 months ago|45 comments|1,086 views
Written by
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
Nuclear Power, way the panic? The other day I was at a coffee shop having casual conversations. Somehow the topic of green energy was introduced and a debate broke out in the peaceful setting. I stayed quite most of the time due to the fact I did not want to bring anger down on my head. One person was preaching the power of nuclear energy, the other the evils of nuclear waste. I had some knowledge in the area, but had not checked my facts.

The fear of the great atomic power has been instilled in me since I was a small boy. World War Two, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island all horror storied of a terrible curse that mankind had brought on himself. The question rose in my mind during the conversation, why the fear?

I Googled the subject,(just to get some idea to look) and received millions of pages. The first few pages were all anti-sites. So I went to the department of energy. They site was very helpful which was very different for a government site. I was surprised. Some of the major issues that the anti-site had was what to do with nuclear energy. That made sense to me, I had been taught the dangers in school.

The United States is powered by %20 nuclear power. The last reactor was built in 1973! There is less then 150 plants in the country. The total amount of waste that all of the plants have accumulated, including the navy and weapons, is 53,000 metric tons. Sound like a lot. Its not. The government site put it in perspective. All of the rods would fit in a 100x40 field. That is the playing field of a football field. and it would be 10 feet high. That is it.

What are we afraid of? That is a tiny amount. Zero Americans have died from nuclear power. But how many people have died from coal and its mining process. I like it, we should use it will wind and solar so we can be "Green" and get energy independence.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
amishking
amishking
 Moderator
Auburn, NY
37 months ago: Imagine how efficient a brand new nuclear power plant would be with today's technology.

Also, we could ship our nuclear waste to china, they seem to find a use for everything. Maybe they could turn it into a lowfat dessert topping or perhaps a new fangled lava lamp that doesn't need to be plugged in.

Oh those chinese..they're so crafty.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: Or Yucca Mountain, good spot, already built. But I do like lave lamps.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: And imagine a nuclear melt down in your home state. I don't want it in mine. Fortunately Fort St. Vrain nuclear power plant was decommissioned and retrofitted during my lifetime. I don't want the waste traveling through my state, I don't want the plants in my state, and there is no need for it. Colorado can produce enough solar and wind electricity to power not just our state but all the surrounding states. We don't need to go down this dangerous and toxic road. Ever again. You want to live on nuclear power, move to France. Just beware because if any of their plants ever does melt down, there won't be any more France to be worried about.
amishking
amishking
 Moderator
Auburn, NY
37 months ago: Raver,

Would you mind a power plant if it was guarenteed safe? Not that we have one yet, but in therory?

Just wondering.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: People talk of dangerous radiation around nuclear plants yet there is often more radiation around a coal powered plant because of the radiation released when coal is burned.

I doubt anyone would want a nuclear power plant in their back yard but in the UK there are a lot of people who don't want wind farms in their back yard either. We have a term NIMBY, meaning Not In My Back Yard, to describe the phenomenon.

Nuclear power produces less waste and is less damaging to the environment than all fossil fuel based power stations. It can also produce far more power per sq ft of foot print than all renewable sources (using current technology). The problem is that if something goes dramatically wrong it is really dramatic.

As long as the plant is designed properly though and how to handle a "worst case scenario" is resolved satisfactorily the only problem becomes the NIMBYs.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: I don't get it, why go to nuclear power? personally, i wouldn't mind nuclear power, i know the meltdown issue, there is one in Limerick, which is about 25 minutes from my house.

But why bother? If we'd just utilize the wind turbines we'd be set! Hop on google and see how much it can power. The problem is the companies in power now are spending millions, if not billions, to lobby for zero change.

If we'd just switch to solar and wind, we'd be set!
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: Some great responses. One thing I keep hearing in the nuclear talk is the danger of a melt down. Once again, propaganda has made us fearful of something we do not understand. I thought the same thing about nuclear energy.

There as only been one non contained meltdown in the history of nuclear power and that was Chernobyl. The reason for the meltdown was that the Russian military was running tests in the reactor, to see how to melt down enemy reactors! They induced it!. Second, the reactor did not have a concrete covering. So when it did melt down they could not seal it off. That was why 40 men died building a shield around the melted reactor.

Even with the loss of a total of 100 workers that bravely sealed of the site, the disaster was small compared to many coal, chemical and industrial accidents of the past. As for radiation poising. The only confirmed cancers from the leak in radiation was that 1800 children in the area developed thyroid cancer latter in life. It is very treatable and less then 20 died. Nuclear power is powerful, which means it has to be handled responsibly, like everything else. But it is not as dangerous as green movements want us to believe.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: @ The Legend Tom Wing. Do not get me wrong. I like wind and solar. But those do not work everywhere and places they do, still need a conventional back up system. Right now the back up systems are mostly coal and gas. I would love to have wind and solar with back up nuclear. We do not even have to build new plants, just replace the old ones with new generation ones, then solar and wind power can be used on a mass scale.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: I wonder why small wind turbines are not built in to new homes in the UK as a planning requirement. They are sold in DIY stores here but few people fit them because the perception is you'd have to live in the house for 10 years before you'd get your money back (don't know how true this is) and in most cases people just cannot see that far ahead to see if it will benefit them.

The Government were also giving grants to people to fit solar panels up until recently, it wasn't advertised that well, but even with the grant the cost was such that again people felt it would be 10 years before they got their money back.

If solar panels or wind turbines were made a requirement in new homes and better grants were given to retro-fit old homes then this would alleviate much of the domestic demand for power. That said most of the demand is industrial.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: I am not anti-nuclear but I would point out that some areas around the Chernobyl disaster site are still deemed unsafe for human habitation.

Nuclear power handled properly is safe screw it up though and it can have long term effects, although I agree with Colorado Chernobyl was as bad as it was mainly because of flaws in its design.
jfarmer9
jfarmer9
Salt Lake City, UT
37 months ago: Wind is great but it does not provide the base load nuclear does. Also, a nuke plant takes one sq mile to produce 3,000 mege watts. Wind takes 374 square miles to produce 9,000 to 11,0000 wind turbines. This is eqaul to todays nuke plant in energy production. Also, check out these safety facts about wind

http://atomwatch.blogspot.com/2009/02/continuing-theme-of-wind-vs-nuclear.html

People who talk about Chernobyls in the West are just miss informed. I still think it was way for Russia to scare the West off nuke power and towards the natural gas they produce. It was Europe that recived the fall out not Mosscow
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: Well said, nice video too.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Wow JFarmer, that's a bold claim. Chernobyl was done on purpose to force Europe to buy Russian natural gas. Guess it didn't convince the French as France is the most nuclear-power dependent nation on earth.

Here's my point. Why go to the expense of building the plants, operating the plants, and dealing with the waste if we don't need to do so. Solar is a far, far, far better alternative. And, sorry to disappoint Colorado, my fellow stat resident, but no back-up system is necessary as he claims. Just as the sun lights the day for us every day, even on cloudy days, the amount of solar energy received each day for free from our own personal star is sufficient to supply every power need. We can store the excess energy generated in the Arizona desert summer to use on cloudy days in New England. The only things standing in our way of true, free, unlimited power is the lobbyists of companies that are bilking us for billions annually to buy their products, the use of which, are potentially destroying all life on earth.

I just don't see why the conservatives and the partyless Colorado would distract our nation from this opportunity unless it's because they are working now for the nuclear energy lobbyists. Nuclear power plants cost hundreds of millions more to build than solar farms. They run the risk of human error and meltdowns, their waste is toxic for 100,000 years and transporting it makes great targets for bad guys. Why on earth take those unnecessary risks?
37 months ago: France has already defined the way to go. That country gets a higher percentage of their power from nuclear plants. It needs some care, it needs safety built right in, it needs engineering and multiple, redundant safety built in. And such plants need reliable management. Once established, maintenance and continual safety checks are important. So you wouldn't want nuclear plants where the government was unstable. The safety consideration is ongoing and important. But it can work. And France has done well for years, with nuclear.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Okay enough is enough...

1) Nuclear Power Plants cost between $6 and $12 billion to build – that's build. That says nothing to the costs of running and the waste disposal.

2) The USA was on course to being more nuclear powered than France back in the 70s and 80s. Why did we stop? We stopped because we realized a few things: (a) talk about leaving a deficit to our great grandchildren, how about leaving waste that won't be safe for a quarter of a million years?, (b) transporting waste materials to storage facilities is a potential ecological disaster in the making and a melted down plant would make that look like small potatoes, (c) Bloomberg predicts that half of all nuclear plants that would be built in the USA would default on loans, it's one thing if they are owned and run by the government as they are in France, but hey we're not a socialist nation, (d) the money spent subsidizing nuclear plants could be better spent on solar and wind power sites, (e) the amount of water and heavy water needed to control a nuclear plant is also an environmental travesty.

Switching from oil, coal, and gas to nuclear is simply replacing one evil with another.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago:
Why on earth are the conservatives so high on nuclear now? Is it because they see this as yet another way to bilk the American people out of billions of dollars? Why not spend the same money on solar and bilk us that way? At least it wouldn't have the catastrophic nightmare potential of transporting spent nuclear fuel rods from New England to Yucca Mountain. I will do everything in my power to get legislation enacted to prevent cargo trains or trucks from ever transporting nuclear material through my state and you should too. We have truck and train crashes in our country all the time. If a train carrying spent nuclear rods crashed near a suburban metropolitan area it could literally kill an American city. It's one thing when poor engineering and a natural disaster wipes out a city and another when we do it to ourselves.

But, I cannot for the life of me figure out why, after abandoning the plans, decommissioning tons of plants, and placing moratoriums on building new nuclear plants, people are high on this idea again. It's a truly bad and horrifying one.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: If there were no alternatives, fine, I'd go along with it, but solar and wind can produce more energy safely with little waste.
jfarmer9
jfarmer9
Salt Lake City, UT
37 months ago: “If a train carrying spent nuclear rods crashed near a suburban metropolitan area it could literally kill an American city.” This is a quote from a previous comment.

This statement truly shows how misinformed the public is. First you can't break those containers open when you drop them from an air plane. Also if there was a breach, which never has happened, the rods are solid and would be hard if not impossible to disperse.

Please, at least try to get your facts right. Maybe you can phrase statements with “this is what I believe” instead of quoting them as fact.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: "According to a recent Star Tribune article, a clear reminder of the safety issues occurred last year when a radioactive piece of equipment being shipped to Pennsylvania from Minnesota’s Prairie Island nuclear plant shifted during transport. Radiation eight times higher than safety standards allow escaped by the time the item reached its destination. Shipping and storing one of the most dangerous substances ever created..." – By Ken Bradley and Monique Sullivan
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: "...one of the biggest problems with nuclear power is that it produces nuclear waste. And even in France, finding a place to put nuclear waste has been a messy affair."

Read the story, perhaps not is all as rosy in France as the GOP might like to it to be.

source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12837958

I also find it astonishing that the French, loathed by conservatives for their brilliant nationalized health care system is now suddenly a role model when it comes to power. How does one nation get some things so right and others so wrong?
jfarmer9
jfarmer9
Salt Lake City, UT
37 months ago: Solar power is not the complete answer.

There is no base load support from solar. Second, solar panels are way expensive to produce from a monetary and a carbon standpoint, this not to mention all of the hazardous chemicals that that are created with each solar panel. Finally, by weight and bulk solar is the most inefficient of all energy sources, this includes the billions tons of **** created by coal.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: I fully understand your concerns because they where once concerns of mine. So let me try to explain Nuclear power outside of conservative politics, because I have no affiliation one way or the other. And please remember, I am not attacking anyone, just showing the research I have done.

1) Cost. Yes the price of a new generation plant is expensive. The one in Missouri that is attempting to be built is about $8 billion. This will not be the average price of reactors because this is the first one since 1973. But for the sack of argument lets compare solar and nuclear costs.

There is a solar plant being built in the southwest desert. It will be the biggest in the US. It will cost about $2 billion to build and produces 300 megawatts. Not bad. The Missouri reactor being built will cost $8 billion and produce 1500 megawatts. But still does not decide whats better. $2 billion divided by 300 megawatts = $6,666,666 per megawatt. $8 billion divided by 1500 megawatts= $5,333,333. So the costs are comparable at this stage.
jfarmer9
jfarmer9
Salt Lake City, UT
37 months ago: "Bloomberg predicts that half of all nuclear plants that would be built in the USA would default on loans"

This might be true and thanks for giving a source to your statement.

What you need to realize is the USA is the only country that relies on the private sector to build nuke plants. Second if a true cap and trade system goes into effect the nuclear price tag will be reduced significantly in comparision to any other base load power source.

Nuclear may be expensive to build but they are the cheapest to run. This will be even truer if we can start recycling the full rods.

Recyling = less $ spent on disposal.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: 2) Waste. Yes it is dangerous, but not deadly by any standard. It will not explode under any circumstances. It is in solid form so it will not leak into the air and spread radiation. There is a tiny amount of waste compared to energy out put. We have a multi-billion dollar facility ready and waiting for nuclear full. As I said before, all of the waste accumulated in the US can be fit into a football field. 100 yards x 40 yards x 10 feet high. It produces no CO2 and does not require much energy to mine or ship.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: 3) Solar is great, but to build it requires a lot of energy, energy that comes from coal and other co2 sources. Think of Nuclear as a stepping stone. It will be very hard to go straight from coal to solar because of the strain on infrastructure. Solar is still an experimental energy source. Nuclear is not. Which makes access much easier. I believe there is a lot of promise in solar. But we have nuclear technology now, and we have energy needs. And it is very clean.
jfarmer9
jfarmer9
Salt Lake City, UT
37 months ago: "Wow JFarmer, that's a bold claim. Chernobyl was done on purpose to force Europe to buy Russian natural gas"

All I can say is why did the Kremlin spend several hundreds of thousand of dollars and full day of a nuclear plants time to produce enough PO210 to kill some low life leaving in England? True I have no proof but it all seems so convent for Russia.
37 months ago: "Once again, propaganda has made us fearful of something we do not understand."

How was Chernobyl propaganda?

How is radioactive waste propaganda?

How is the fact that nuclear energy only has a net energy yield of less than 10% propaganda?

How is the fact that all the promises that nuclear energy made us back in the 50's not come true propaganda?

Sir, the problems stated with nuclear energy are not propaganda, they are history and facts.
37 months ago: "The only confirmed cancers from the leak in radiation was that 1800 children in the area developed thyroid cancer latter in life. It is very treatable and less then 20 died."

Wind energy doesn't cause thyroid cancer, and furthermore doesn't kill childern.

Plus, there are the uncomfirmed deaths caused by radiation in military personal. Yes "uncomfirmed" because the government has been less then eager to release information on this.

On one side you have nuclear, which is dangerous, money intensive, resource intesive, has a low net energy, and profits energy companies. On the other side you have wind and solar which are clean, renewable, and profit the people who install them in their homes.

So would you rather pay for energy that is unclean, dangerous, and has persistant pollutants, or use an energy which you can profit off of that is safe and clean?
37 months ago: "Nuclear power is powerful, which means it has to be handled responsibly, like everything else."

Exactly. In places around the world, it is not handled responsibly and the created radioactive waste goes missing which could easily be used by terrorists in a dirty bomb.

So we can use wind and solar, which don't produce potential weapons for our enemies, or use nuclear which does produce potential weapons for our enemies.
37 months ago: "But those do not work everywhere and places they do, still need a conventional back up system."

Solar does not need a backup system in places where it is hooked up to the power grid. If you use more energy than you create, than you can use power from the power grid.
37 months ago: "Finally, by weight and bulk solar is the most inefficient of all energy sources...."

Really? Would you then like to compare the net energy yields of solar to different energy sources. Becuase net energy is what counts when it comes down to it.

Net energy is the energy created minus the energy used to create it

For example, if coal creates 5 watts of electricity, but it took 2 watts of energy to gather the coal and take it to the factory, then the net energy is 3 watts (Note: this example is hypothetical).

Please, find the net energy of solar compared to nuclear or oil, and then we'll see whats more efficient. If I have the time, i'll look it up.
37 months ago: "But for the sake of argument lets compare solar and nuclear costs."

You forgot to compare the lifetime costs. For solar you set it up and go.

For nuclear, you have to gather the uranium, ship it too a refiner, refine it, send it to the plant, use it, and put it in storage.

Then after 60 years, the plant is to old to use and to costly to upgrade and you have to shut it down. But since its radioactive, the land cannot be used for development. So you then render a bunch of land useless.

Furthermore, to keep the waste on site safe, you must hire guards or invest more money into security systems. This further lowers the profitability of nuclear.

So do the math and you see that over a lifetime of use, nuclear is more expensive then solar.
37 months ago: "Nuclear may be expensive to build but they are the cheapest to run."

Sources please becuase I disagree with this statement. With wind, you just set it up in place and wait for the wind to blow.

For nuclear, you have to constantly intake water into the reactor to cool the different parts and then you need to transport the water out.

Don't forget for nuclear you always have to gather uranium and refine it, like i have said above, further lowering the net energy yeild.

With proper funding and R&D, wind energy can be lowered to 1-2 cents a watt, making it the cheapest energy on the market, lower than nuclear, coal, and oil.

Plus, wind and solar energy decentralize energy, allowing communities to profit off of it and strengthening the economy.

Wind is so profitable, that some farmers like ones in Minnesota are putting up windmills on their farms and profiting off of it.
37 months ago: "We have a multi-billion dollar facility ready and waiting for nuclear full. "

Would you need a multi billion dollar facility for the waste created by wind or solar?

Also, you do realize that Yucca Mountain is on top of an abnormally high number of fault lines right?
37 months ago: " And (nuclear) is very clean."

Lol, tell that to the workers who deal with the nuclear waste.

Nuclear power plants also create thermal pollution which hurts the aquatic ecosystems from which the powerplants draw its coolant.

Plus, what about all the land that is made unusable after the plant shuts down. The land is too radioactive to develop upon.
37 months ago: "It will be very hard to go straight from coal to solar because of the strain on infrastructure."

Not really. You are simply installing solar panels on top of buildings or putting them out on fields. Since setting up solar panels can be done by individuals or small buisnesses, it will stimulate local economies. The community gets to generate and own their energy, not private buisnesses.

Also, decentralizing energy is good for national security. If a terrorist was to take out a nuclear plant, it would cut off the energy to a lot of houses. With lots of solar panels and windmills generating energy, there is 100s of targets to attack instead of one to get a similar effect.

Also, wouldn't setting up thousands of solar panels and windmills across the country stimulate the economy. You have thousands of new projects that need to be done, requiring lots of labor and steady workers. When you set up a coal plant you build it and then the builders are done. But with wind and solar, you will setting up projects all the time and when you aren't building them, your services will be required to maintain them

Also, with a greater demand for wind and solar comes a greater demand from factories to build them. New factories would stimulate small-town america, causing more of the young people to stay for jobs rather than leave to the city to find one.
37 months ago: BTW, i just joined this thread and went through the comments one by one, so thats why there are so many comments from me here.

Conclusion: Nuclear bad. Wind and Solar good.
jfarmer9
jfarmer9
Salt Lake City, UT
37 months ago: Is it me or does it seem like dangerranger failed high school physics and is now full hot air.

Look up base load DangerRanger and tell me how wind can provide what Americas’ futures demands. Also tell me how a nuclear accident in the US would release any contamination to the public. Sounds like you been getting a lot misinformation and can’t admit that you bought into the lie.
Rudi Stettner
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
37 months ago: Choosing the least dangerous and most renewable sources of power would seem to be a no brainer. Despite this, it would seem wise to keep a hand on coveted nuclear technology
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: Danger Ranger. You bring up a lot of great points. I had not idea I would get this many responses. It is clear I need to post a new Rave and I will focus on the questions presented by everyone on here. Once again. I do not think Nuclear is the solve all to energy. Like any good investment you need to hedge your risk by diversifying in many different types of energy. I believe wind and solar are a big part of the, but not the solve all. Like jfarmer9 said, the base load for energy needs can not be met by wind and solar technology at this time. Yes, improvements will be made and it will get better. But to keep using an energy source that started the industrial revolution over 200 years ago seems counterproductive. America can not keep living off of hope and promises, lets use the resources available now, to be become responsible in the short and long terms.

Thanks a lot everyone.
37 months ago: Jfamer9, please show me which part of my argumants you disagree with and why, and then i will politely respond to them and try and show you why I am right.

Please try to include sources or the logic behind the argument, and try not insulting the person you disagree with, becuase it does not further your argument or disprove their argument.

Also, explain to us base load, if you believe so much that it is a legitamite reason for why nuclear is better than wind. That would give your argument more merit and disprove my own more.
37 months ago: "But to keep using an energy source that started the industrial revolution over 200 years ago seems counterproductive."

I'm assuming coal.

"America can not keep living off of hope and promises, lets use the resources available now..."

Wind and solar energy are available now and are not far off promises. In countries like India, solar is powering the entire village and raising living standards.

The base load argument is good, and I believe the solution is decentralizing the energy.

Like I have said, if each household was generating its own energy, and it was using energy efficient techniques to conserve energy, we would have a surplus of energy. With that surplus, we could power buildings that need more energy and power industries that are energy intensive.

By decentralizing energy, we will be supporting local economies and make ourselves less dependent upon power companies.

What would be realistic in the shift from nuclear, coal, oil, etc., would be to use natural gas which is cleaner than coal and oil and has a high net energy.

We could also invest more in biofuels (ethanol, preferably in i think cellulose based fuel) which would allow us to use similar cars in similar ways with more environmental fuels.

Eventually, the goal would be to mimic the environment and get most of our energy from the sun. Futher advancements in hydrogen technology would make cars more green.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: Agreed, I am not trying to insult anyone. I posted a new article on nuclear energy. I included sites that include a lot of my sources that can be easily accessed. I am working on a full research paper with proper citations that I would be more than willing to e-mail that will explain base load and other questions. Thanks for your comments. I do like wind energy a lot, please do not get me wrong.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
37 months ago: And I am glad these places are doing these things, we need the research. But America can not run on solar and wind with this technology yet. But I think we can get there. My point on all of this is nuclear can change the country in short amount of time in so many ways. This will allow us to make wind and solar a reality. France powers their country on 57 nuclear reactors that powers 78% of their country. The other is hydro and growing solar and wind. They did it in less than 15 years. That is how quick we can move to a clean energy future quickly and cheaply.
37 months ago: Sorry, my comment about sources and insults was more directed at jfarmer9. You have been respectful and helpful Colorado.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.