Skeptics and nuclear power

[Desert Fox]

I know any poll here will be unscientific but might be a place to start

Simple questions
1. Do you consider yourself a skeptic?
2. Do you support nuclear power?

Of course anybody want to explain why your positions would be best as well.

My position is that I do consider myself a skeptic.

I support nuclear power because it does not produce greenhouse gas itself although I realize that there are green house gasses produced during the building of the plant and during operations (Still far less than most other power generation methods), it seems to be the only near term solution to energy production, waste can be managed far better today, and modern reactor designs are far safer than those in the past.

 

[Loss Leader]

Nuclear power plants need to be redesigned from the ground up. With modern computers and controls, it should be safe and effective.

Also a big believer in nuclear power or at least radioactive decay for space probes.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Current nuclear power systems are not economically competitive.
There is great potential in generation 4 systems, and nuclear power obviously has its niches; and of course we might actually get somewhere with fusion technology.

Thinking ahead, nuclear power might be needed for interstellar flight, which makes using the fuel up now inadvisable when we have so many alternatives.

 

[McHrozni]

Thinking ahead, nuclear power might be needed for interstellar flight, which makes using the fuel up now inadvisable when we have so many alternatives.

There should be enough fuel to power our entire civilization for a few centuries, we aren't running out of nuclear fuel anytime soon. Nuclear reactors don't provide the energy density needed for interstellar flights.

McHrozni

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There should be enough fuel to power our entire civilization for a few centuries, we aren't running out of nuclear fuel anytime soon. Nuclear reactors don't provide the energy density needed for interstellar flights.

McHrozni

Probably.

Still, I feel better with nuclear waste in space (or the bottom of the ocean) than in any man-made structure: we have a bad track record of keeping stuff safe for a few decades - keeping something secure for a few tens of thousands of years through multiple changes in society and government is just a too uncertain prospect to feel good about.

 

[Desert Fox]

From what I have read, you can reprocess waste and reuse a large portion of it in CANDU type reactors.

 

[Belz...]

Nuclear is probably our best bet for the future right now, even though the tight regulations make prices high. That said, there should be better alternatives for that than what we currently have.

 

[MikeG]

Are we using the wrong fuel? Would thorium be a better alternative?

 

[lomiller]

Not quite sure how to answer. I generally support Nuclear power but question whether capacity can be scaled up sufficiently to replace fossil fuels. I also worry about safety, not so much form a frequency or death rate perspective, but even rare accidents add up when areas can be rendered unusable for many thousands of years.


I’m not concerned about it at current generation rates and could see doubling or even tripling nuclear generating capacity. I think we should build new reactors to replace old ones, and am very much opposed to shutting down reactors and replacing them with fossil fuel based generating capacity.

Are we using the wrong fuel? Would thorium be a better alternative?

It’s a better option in theory, but technology wise we may be a long way from commercially viable reactors that could be built on the scale required to replace fossil fuels.

 

[lomiller]

From what I have read, you can reprocess waste and reuse a large portion of it in CANDU type reactors.

CANDU it a great technology. It can burn Thorium as well. The problem is that it uses a lot of heavy water so we probably can't built the 50 000+ reactors needed to replace fossil fuels.

 

[macdoc]

Generally what iomiller said. I'm a big supporter and nuclear is safe but not economically competitive and dispersed renewables with battery storage will do a better job in the long run.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-07/what-is-tesla-big-sa-battery-and-how-will-it-work/8688992

We might see fusion but given we have a big one in the sky already ...best we exploit that.

I'm also very encouraged by the closed cycle no carbon release gas plants that have been developed recently.

The method had already been applied successfully in a test facility with 100 kW fuel power. An international research project has now managed to increase the scale of the technology significantly, thus creating all the necessary conditions to enable a fully functional demonstration facility to be built in the 10 MW range.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-natural-gas-facilities-co2-emissions.html#jCp

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-natural-gas-facilities-co2-emissions.html

That potentially opens clathrates to power generation and replace the methane in the lattice with CO2.

I'm also intrigued with small nukes ( nuclear batteries ).

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-diamond-age-power-nuclear-batteries.html

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nuclear is probably our best bet for the future right now, even though the tight regulations make prices high. That said, there should be better alternatives for that than what we currently have.

By the same token, you could say that tight regulations make flying expensive.

Nuclear power has so many safety layers because, in the past, all of them have broken down, one time or another. And each time, all plants susceptible to that flaw had to be upgraded. Of course this adds costs, but the alternative is to risk a catastrophe that would discredit nuclear power forever.
Nuclear power plants need to be re-designed from the ground up, with meltdown-proof designs before they will become competitive again.
And, of course, we still need proof that the a permanent storage can be run safely and effectively: in 60 years of commercial nuclear power, none has been built yet, which isn't just an oversight.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Well for sure nuclear needs more research and development. Pity Germany stepped away, they were doing lot of it.
Molten salts and thorium sure sounds nice. But we don't have cold war to fuel the research anymore.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Well for sure nuclear needs more research and development. Pity Germany stepped away, they were doing lot of it.

well, Germany has the most advanced Fusion reactor in the world...

 

[Giordano]

I have two uncertainties: i believe nuclear reactors can be designed and run to be very, very safe, but then are they economically competitive? Perhaps others here can tell me. But more importantly: what are we going to do with the radioactive waste?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I have two uncertainties: i believe nuclear reactors can be designed and run to be very, very safe, but then are they economically competitive? Perhaps others here can tell me. But more importantly: what are we going to do with the radioactive waste?

Currently, most reactors only burn a fraction of the nuclear fuel - the rest is very hot and needs very careful handling.
By using more of these fuels (like in the aforementioned CANDU reactors), a lot less highly radioactive waste is generated.

The biggest flaw in current permanent storage design is to find a place that is expected to the geologically stable for 20,000 years and doesn't leak; then you dump it to the lid with waste and seal it for eternity.
But that's very irresponsible: we need to be able to monitor and intervene if necessary. Many places previously considered "safe" have turned out to be unsuitable during use.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have two uncertainties: i believe nuclear reactors can be designed and run to be very, very safe, but then are they economically competitive?

Really hard to say.... there are so many subsidies and tax issues involves with all types of power generation (nuclear, solar, wind, fossil fuels). Plus you have things like externalities, different time frames to recoup investments, etc.

Perhaps others here can tell me. But more importantly: what are we going to do with the radioactive waste?

2 possibilities...
- Process/recycle the waste, extracting material that can then be used again
- Long term storage. (The U.S. was going to use Yucca Mountain for long term waste storage, but that was ended a few years ago by the Obama administration.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

The major problem with either of these options is not technical (both options are pretty safe), but political... nobody wants to have nuclear waste transported through their town (even if the risk is low), nobody wants to live in the same areas as a nuclear disposal site.

 

[Trebuchet]

I voted with the vast majority (and I'm an engineer as well, so there's that) but would offer the caveat that it's been badly implemented in the USA and has become politically and economically non-viable. That's a shame.

 

[Belz...]

Are we using the wrong fuel? Would thorium be a better alternative?

That's what I was hinting at. Assuming the technology was as well-developed as the one we're currently using it could conceivably be a much better alternative. Then there's fusion, of course.

By the same token, you could say that tight regulations make flying expensive.

Absolutely, and I see your point. But I think that nuclear power is over-regulated because of hysteria mostly stoked by the mass media and the unfortunate incident at Chernobyl. There are good reasons to be very careful about nuclear, but there is a point at which it's excessive. Imagine buying a 18,000$ plane ticket to go from NYC to London.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A large factor in costs are the timescales involved: from planning to decomissioning, 80 years might pass, requiring constant upgrades in safety.
Since there will never be many players capable of binding tens of billions for such long times, nuclear power can never really exist in a truly free market without government backing.