Nuclear Power Stations - Yes or No

[lionking]

Nuclear power is said to have one of the lowest power generation costs. If this is truly the case why in the world is the nuclear lobby needing any government assistance?

In Australia the government either builds power stations itself, or through PPP (private-public parterships). Of course this may not be the case elsewhere, but when the end product is a public utility, why wouldn't the government support it?

 

[Skeptic]

Yes. I want a nuclear plant where I live. Well, not right where I live, as it is a terrible site for a plant.

I'm not so sure. You're a single man in your 20s, right? I'll bet they can use the leftovers in your fridge as nuclear fuel. And there's hardly any point worrying about fallout -- that plant on the window sill, the only sign of life in the area, hasn't had leaves on it since last autumn...

 

[lionking]

Okay, given that most responses are positive, with a couple of qualifications, why are some governments so averse to building nuclear power stations and what can be done to influence this position?

 

[Eyeron]

a couple of reasons.

Cost of management of the facilities and toxic/nuclear waste. That means more money which could possibly mean more taxes which of course most people except government stooges hate.

Secondly, it is just not very popular because people fear a nuclear meltdown, which is not an unreasonable fear. There is absolutely no way to be one hundred percent safe when it comes to nuclear power plants. One can only reduce the chance of having a meltdown as much as possible. Things break and decay and need maintenance. If something is missed then that could mean kaboom and guess what that means? Bye bye career.

 

[richardm]

I also thought with only two choices it wasn't too hard to post "yes" or "no", and preferably with a reason.

Planet X uses Fusion reactors and I want to be like them.

I'm pro-Nuclear, with the caveat that the waste and general clean-up at the end of a plant's life seems to be a difficult problem.

I'm not entirely clear about whether it's a genuine physical problem or whether it's public opposition to having waste dumped under (or near to) homes that is the major difficulty. I hear a lot about most of the waste being of a very low risk, but it all gets lumped together for purposes of discussion.

But I don't know. I should probably go and find out, since I protested against Nirex back in the 80s

 

[Fishstick]

a couple of reasons.

Cost of management of the facilities and toxic/nuclear waste. That means more money which could possibly mean more taxes which of course most people except government stooges hate.

.

What do you think happens to the radioactive elements in coal that just get burned up and vented into the air? Fly ash brings up to 100 times more radiation into an environment than a nuke plant does, because nothing is done with it. Gram for gram, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

There is absolutely no way to be one hundred percent safe when it comes to nuclear power plants.One can only reduce the chance of having a meltdown as much as possible. Things break and decay and need maintenance.

The same is true for coal, oil and natural gas power plants. Or any type of power generation. Dams can break, pipelines can rupture.

 

[portlandatheist]

Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Nuclear power is also many orders of magnitude safer than coal. How many people die each year in coal mines? People also die putting up those huge wind turbines, have you seen one? Nuclear power is an easy choice.

more info on mortality rates with regard to wind power:
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

 

[Wolfman]

Okay, given that most responses are positive, with a couple of qualifications, why are some governments so averse to building nuclear power stations and what can be done to influence this position?

I'd say its simple.

Doing nothing doesn't get them in trouble. Its just maintaining the status quo, doing what the other gov'ts before them have done, so if there are any problems, it can't be blamed directly on them.

However, doing something that requires change subjects them to risk. If something goes wrong (it costs too much, or there's a dangerous accident), then who gets the blame for it? They do. They can't really blame anyone else for the decision.

Gov't "cover your butt" bureaucracy. The world would be much farther ahead without it.

 

[Darat]

Yes.

I was watching an advertisement for the coal industry recently -- in PA, there are a ton of them -- and they've got this succession of people, workers, kids, people on the street, etc, extolling the virtues of coal. And this one guy is making this big deal about how we have enough coal to last 150 years.

Now, I'm sure there's actually more than that, but that was their argument. 150 years? Is anyone really so short-sighted to think that's a solid foundation for the future? Let's leave something for the next wave of humanity to rebuild civilization with, eh?

Out of curiosity how long will uranium supplies last if we increase our reliance on it as a fuel source (serious question I don't know the answer).

 

[Skeptic]

If something is missed then that could mean kaboom and guess what that means? Bye bye career.

If a nuclear plant you're working in goes kaboom, your career is the last problem you've got.

 

[Fishstick]

Out of curiosity how long will uranium supplies last if we increase our reliance on it as a fuel source (serious question I don't know the answer).

There are 3 types of categorisations for uranium resources.

The first distinguishes conventional uranium resources, where uranium is the main product of extraction operations, from unconventional uranium resources, where uranium is extracted as a minor by-product when extracting other materials.

The second categorisation is based on the level of confidence that the resources exist given how much exploration has been done. This categorisation distinguishes between identified resources, inferred resources, prognosticated resources and others categories.

The third categorization is by extraction cost.

Conventional resources where uranium is the main product: Estimated 14.8 million tonnes. Among them is 4.7million tonnes that is basically "in hand" - we know they exist because we can see them in mines that are already dug or in analyzed rock samples, or can be inferred from geological surveys.

The remaining part of conventional resources is about 10 million tonnes of "undiscovered" or "speculative" resources, based on limited geological survey. It is most likely an underestimate as only about 2/3rd of all countries have reported deposits in this category. Australia, for example, has not.

Finally there are unconventional resources. That´s another 22 million tonnes. These are associated with phosphates and also fall within the cost category of less than $130/kg.

One important reference point to note is that in the whole 60-year history of the nuclear era through today, the total amount of uranium that has been produced adds up to about 2.2 Mt.

That´s how much there is. How long will it last? If it´s used at the rate we use it today, the answer is that the 4.7 million tU of "identified resources" would last eight to nine decades.
The "total conventional resources" of 14.8 million tU, again at current usage rates, would last several hundred years.
And if we next add in uranium associated with phosphates, we have enough uranium to last 600 to 700 years.

Again this all assumes unchanged usage rates and unchanged technology and unchanged efficiency of reactors.

 

[lionking]

Out of curiosity how long will uranium supplies last if we increase our reliance on it as a fuel source (serious question I don't know the answer).

Okay this is from the World Nuclear Association, so take it as you will:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

Current usage is about 65,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

Another one:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/

The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fast-reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years.

Another:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates.

Supply doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[Fiona]

Out of curiosity how long will uranium supplies last if we increase our reliance on it as a fuel source (serious question I don't know the answer).

Said on the radio this week (radio 4 but I can't remember the programme: probably home planet) that known reserves would probably last 40 years

If that is correct I do not think it is a solution of any kind

 

[lionking]

Fiona, I don't think my links are that unreliable, particularly the Scientific American one.

 

[Rasmus]

It is widely believed that Germany still allows the USA to store several nuclear weapons in a number of locations here in Germany.

Actual nuclear bombs - designed and build to blow up at the metaphorical touch of a button and probably quite capable to actually blow up at just a few carefully chosen keystrokes.

On the other hand, we are debating about the safety of nuclear powerplants - designed and build to not blow up under any conceivable circumstances, including head on crashes of airplanes.

I am not certain what my thoughts on nuclear powerplants are - frankly, I think the risk of things going terribly wrong is quite low, and normal operation seems to be a lot easier and greener than any other plant relying on non-renewable energy sources. But I haven't given that enough thought, really. I am certain about my priorities: In a world with nuclear bombs, nuclear powerplaqnts are not what I'd worry about.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona, I don't think my links are that unreliable, particularly the Scientific American one.

They vary very widely though

 

[richardm]

Said on the radio this week (radio 4 but I can't remember the programme: probably home planet) that known reserves would probably last 40 years

If that is correct I do not think it is a solution of any kind

A quick google indicates that the 40 year figure is correct for Reserves for Canada alone. At least I think that's what it says. Could you possibly be misremembering?

Canada’s uranium reserves are the third largest in the world, after those of Australia and Kazakhstan. As of January 1, 2007, Canada held 423,400 tonnes or 9 per cent of the world’s total uranium known reserves recoverable at a uranium price of $100 per kilogram. At higher prices, additional uranium deposits would be deemed economically recoverable, thereby increasing Canada’s uranium reserves.
At current production levels, the known uranium deposits will last more than 40 years. However, geological evidence points to the existence of significant undiscovered deposits.

The article goes on to comment that although Canada is only the third largest repository, it's currently the largest producer.

Edit: On the other hand

The global uranium resources with mining costs up to US $ 130 per kilogram amount to about 3.3 million tonnes. With 3.3 million tonnes, all 436 world-wide operating nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades.

40 years is several decades; so is 230 years. I give up

 

[Talby]

What is the absolute worst case scenario for a nuclear power plant disaster?

 

[Fishstick]

What is the absolute worst case scenario for a nuclear power plant disaster?

Your question is too ambigious, the scenario varies wildly depending on factors such as reactor type, design of the power plant, and the type of incident.

For example a CANDU reactor is designed with at least one large low-temperature and low-pressure water reservoirs around its fuel/coolant channels. Even with a severe coolant loss problem, these backup heatsinks are enough to prevent the meltdown in the first place, or prevent the breach of the core vessel.

 

[quadraginta]

What is the absolute worst case scenario for a nuclear power plant disaster?

"Absolute" is a toughie. It would always be possible to 'one-up' from any example.

I'll start with a full scale, unchecked, "China Syndrome" type meltdown in the middle of a major urban waterway like, say, the Susquehanna River.