Enviromentalists and Anti-Nuclearism

Hegel

Scholar
H
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Messages
79
This was one part of the Enviromentalist program that I have never understood. Why do they insist on removing a power source that is clean, safe (when well designed and run), and extremely efficient? I would think that enviromentalists would jump all over the ability to use this energy source that would eliminate the foul polution, produced by the current power generating facilities.
 
You're assuming enviromentalist are rational thinkers.
 
Depends on what you consider "clean". Coal burning plants produce very high amounts of radioactive waste that go right up the smokestacks and into the atmosphere.

Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger

How does the amount of nuclear material released by coal combustion compare to the amount consumed as fuel by the U.S. nuclear power industry? According to 1982 figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of electricity. During the same year, about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add 1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels. The same conclusion applies for worldwide nuclear fuel and coal combustion.
Click to expand...

Here are a few links on safety / transporting nuclear waste and some tests done on these containers etc:

http://www.sandia.gov/recordsmgmt/ctb1.html
http://www.sandia.gov/media/firetest.htm

nuclear energy in general
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/ne3.htm

a real quick and basic comparison of different energy resources:
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm

I'm no expert and there are probably better sources of info out there. I just found these with a quick search. I do feel that we should embrace nuclear power more than we do (in the U.S.). Where I live, about 30% of the power in my area is provided through nuclear power plants. Most people don't even realize it.
 
Hegel said:


Please expand.
Click to expand...

He can't. Nuclear power, sanely implemented, and with full-blown fuel reprocessing and capture-breeding of fuel, is about 20x more fuel-efficient than what we have now, and it leaves behind more active, but very less long-lived trash that is easily held until it decays.
 
Tony said:
You're assuming enviromentalist are rational thinkers.
Click to expand...

Most people make the mistake of thinking enviromentalists somehow know whats good for the environment. I'd like to know how many greenpeace members have a Bsc.
 
Tony said:
You're assuming enviromentalist are rational thinkers.
Click to expand...
And you're assuming that Nuclear reactors are all run by sensible, safe people..... How would you feel about a couple of huge worn out low budget ex soviet design reactors with no maintenance budget run by untrained Mexicans a couple of minutes south of you with a nice stiff southerly blowing? I Think you may even get involved in putting a stop to that sort of scenario.....oops, you'd be called an environmentalist....Lol.

Think I might come around to your place and crap in your well, you wouldn't be irrational enough to complain about it making the drinking water unhealthy would you? Any trees near where you live? Do you like what they do for the place? Can I cut them all down if I give you 5 bucks ?.....careful how you answer, you may say something irrational.
 
This was one part of the Enviromentalist program that I have never understood. Why do they insist on removing a power source that is clean, safe (when well designed and run), and extremely efficient?
Click to expand...
What Environmentalist program? Who is this "they" conspiracy?

Here are some of my concerns:
Maintenance (problem with some current reactors)
Design flaws (some don't become apparent for 20 years)
Waste management (in a terrorist world and when nobody wants to take the stuff)
Construction by low bidder (encourages corner cutting)

Realistic solutions for these concerns would make nuke power plants sound like a good idea.


SORT OF OFF TOPIC /

Some fun Acronyms:

NIMBY (you all know this one) - not in my back yard

NOTE - not over there either

BANANA - build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything

NOPE - not on planet earth
 
Here are some of my concerns:

Maintenance (problem with some current reactors)
Design flaws (some don't become apparent for 20 years)
Waste management (in a terrorist world and when nobody wants to take the stuff)
Construction by low bidder (encourages corner cutting)

Realistic solutions for these concerns would make coal and oil power plants sound like a good idea.
 
fishbob said:
What Environmentalist program? Who is this "they" conspiracy?

Here are some of my concerns:
Maintenance (problem with some current reactors)
Design flaws (some don't become apparent for 20 years)
Waste management (in a terrorist world and when nobody wants to take the stuff)
Construction by low bidder (encourages corner cutting)

Realistic solutions for these concerns would make nuke power plants sound like a good idea.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry about not naming the group. The United States Socialist Party's enviromental program states the shut down of all nuclear power plants.

Maintenance - I absolutely agree, the old Soviet reactors definately need maintenance, but that is just a matter of money.

Design flaws - I haven't heard of any design flaws that appear after 20 years, if you could explain it, or give me a link I would be very thankful.

Waste management - You're quite right about how no one wants it. Not even the terrorists. I've talked to a specialist (masters degree in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Michigan) in the nuclear industry and they said that the waste from a commercial nuclear power plant does not produce bomb-grade material.

Construction (by the lowest bidder) - The regulations in the United States are very strict on the building codes of Nuclear power plants. Because they have the potential to be more dangerous, government regulations actually make them more safe.
 
Allow me to show my age, after the Three Mile Island accident there were some very good recommendations made and here are two of them:

1) Have a standardized design for all new nuke plants in order to make them easier to build, maintain, inspect, supply and repair.
2) Come up with a good plan for disposing of the nuclear waste produced by the plants.

So far, there has been no substantive progress on the first issue. And while there has been some progress regarding waste disposal, I do not think that a real solution has yet been made.

That is why I am opposed to nuclear power.
 
Hegel said:
This was one part of the Enviromentalist program that I have never understood. Why do they insist on removing a power source that is clean, safe (when well designed and run), and extremely efficient? I would think that enviromentalists would jump all over the ability to use this energy source that would eliminate the foul polution, produced by the current power generating facilities.
Click to expand...
Good question.

I'm an environmentalist in the sense that I'm a member of WWF. And yet, I have never understood this reluctance of environmentalist to accept nuclear power. Nuclear power produces no CO2, and the "storage problems" aren't really problems. I'm totally pro-fission, although I would of course prefer the possibility of being pro-fusion.
 
Your assumption here is that the goal of the leading environmentalists and green groups is truly to find a source of energy that can cleanly support an advanced, growing, technological society.

Nuclear power certainly qualifies as that; yet they oppose it. Similarly, genetically modified crops (modified to resist diseases and pests) qualify as an environmentally-friendly food source that would increase yields, thus sparing us the need to use more land and more pesticides. Yet they oppose GM crops, too.

Paying lip service to environmental protection is one thing. But whenever a new technological method to advance human well-being in a clean, eco-friendly way comes along, greens fight it tooth and nail.

You ought to ask yourself why. You can do that by questioning that first assumption.
 
jj said:
He can't.
Click to expand...
Or... He perfers not to.
Nuclear power, sanely implemented, and with full-blown fuel reprocessing
and capture-breeding of fuel, is about 20x more fuel-efficient than what we
have now, and it leaves behind more active, but very less long-lived trash
that is easily held until it decays.
Click to expand...
Actually it's not trash. You can convert the emissions of alpha,
beta, and gamma radiation into a cheep power source as well.

Getting back on track.

If it's so efficient and thusly profitable, why isn't it being bank rolled
by the free market? In answering the question you may consult such
sources as Shanek and Cold Fusion experts. :D
 
At the slim chance something goes wrong, it can have disastrous consequences. I guess that's the main reason for the fear that exists among many. People who can't grasp why there is a fear should take a trip to Chernobyl. This fear might be irrational when compared to the chance of something actually happens, if the plant is run properly, but it's still understandable that it exists.
 
Maintenance - I absolutely agree, the old Soviet reactors definately need maintenance, but that is just a matter of money.

Design flaws - I haven't heard of any design flaws that appear after 20 years, if you could explain it, or give me a link I would be very thankful.

Waste management - You're quite right about how no one wants it. Not even the terrorists. I've talked to a specialist (masters degree in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Michigan) in the nuclear industry and they said that the waste from a commercial nuclear power plant does not produce bomb-grade material.

Construction (by the lowest bidder) - The regulations in the United States are very strict on the building codes of Nuclear power plants. Because they have the potential to be more dangerous, government regulations actually make them more safe.
Click to expand...
1) I was not talking about upgrading and repairing old Soviet reactors. I meant US reactor maintenance - day to day operations, done by well trained, well paid, reliable operators. (Non-Homer operators)

2) I seem to recall about a year ago, some steel vessel lid was found to have corroded through - almost. The reactor water was more corrosive than the design allowed for. Also no provision for replacement of the lid. Will google later.

3) I am not worried about bombs. Terrorists only have to obtain some nuclear reactor residue to cause massive panic in US cities. Wait, they don't have to even obtain any, they only need to appear to want to try to obtain some, to cause massive panic. And our national waste repository is still not built. See NIMBY above.

4) Building codes are well and good. A properly funded contract, with responsive government contract managers should lead to construction of a properly built facility. In the real world, the government is horrible at writing work scopes, obtaining bids, managing contracts, or inspections. And the low bidder is the most likely entity to not have a well funded contract - and is therefore more likely to cut corners.

edit to add, for 2 above:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0507-01.htm

The Davis Besse corrosion was caused by a buildup of boric acid from reactor cooling water that had been leaking from nozzle cracks since the mid-1990s. The first signs of corrosion appeared four years ago when rust began clogging filters, investigators said.

Despite a 1988 NRC directive to keep reactor lids free of boron, the layers of the powdery deposits hardened so much atop the dome — where access is difficult because of space and radiation exposure — that workers couldn't pry it loose.

But the company's engineers did not link the rust to safety-related corrosion and were assured that the boron powder was harmless since they believed heat from the reactor would evaporate any moisture.

But it is now believed the water leaking from the nozzle cracks, rather than evaporating, settled beneath the hardened layers of boron, providing enough moisture to turn the powder back into corrosive boric acid.
Click to expand...
 
Synchronicity said:

Or... He perfers not to.
Could be. could be.
Actually it's not trash. You can convert the emissions of alpha,
beta, and gamma radiation into a cheep power source as well.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about long down the chain to short-lived elements that are hard to control. Yes, indeed, you could use them in thermopiles, that is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom