I have been turned (on nuclear reactors)

[Safe-Keeper]

OK, so I used to be against nuclear power like anyone else, do to risk of radiation, a meltdown, the fact that there exist cleaner sources of energy, how reactors don't last long, storing of waste, etc. Then I started reading the "Nuclear power - I need to vent/rant" thread (when it was active). This was the first seed of doubt in my mind.

Later, much later, I started going through the Skeptoid podcasts, and what do you know, there's one about 'the terror of nuclear power'. I was turned. I had no idea how safe reactors really were, or how little waste was produced, and he makes an excellent point about how we'd most likely not be facing as bad an AGW scenario as we do if we'd relied on nuclear power stations powering electric cars.

My only concern about nuclear power, which you guys may be able to address, is that as far as I know, the reactors only last for fifty years, and then have to be dismantled, which is a costly and lengthy process. Is this true? If so, isn't it a rather strong argument against building nuclear power plants?

 

[TraneWreck]

It seems to me that nuclear power, as it currently exists, is a sort of necessary problem. I just don't see how we're going to be able to cover the immediate energy demands with solar and wind power (assuming we've rightly concluded that we need to get off the CO2 wagon immediately).

The cost of the plants, as you mentioned, and the problems surrounding the waste are inferior to the problems of global warming. So I say go nuclear fast. It's kind of like punting. Eventually we'll have to deal with spent fuel rods, but at least we can buy some time.

 

[jbjr]

I cant speak directly for civilian power plant but naval nuclear power plants will outlast the ship that they power. If a power plant is being dismantled than its only because the ship its on is being decommissioned.

Nucear power plants can be refueled multiple times over their lifetime and with proper maintenence and a good bit of planning ahead they could very well last longer than 50 years. However, they will eventually need to be dismantled and that is a costly and time consuming process. Though this is a concern i wouldnt let it prevent me form accepting nuclear power because the cost will certainly come down as more plants are built and more efficient ways of building/dismantling them come to light.

The meltdown/radiation risk (whic you seem to have overcome) has always been a sore spot with me. The risks for a well built plant are very very low not to mention the Navy has been using Nuclear power for over 50 years and has a perfect nuclear saftey record.

 

[TraneWreck]

The meltdown/radiation risk (whic you seem to have overcome) has always been a sore spot with me. The risks for a well built plant are very very low not to mention the Navy has been using Nuclear power for over 50 years and has a perfect nuclear saftey record.

Compare the number of deaths in the nuclear industry and related activities with the number of people who have died in coal mines in the last 40 years.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Compare the number of deaths in the nuclear industry and related activities with the number of people who have died in coal mines in the last 40 years.

Not just in. If the podcast I linked to is to be believed, 30 to 40 000 people die annually in the US alone from diseases caused by pollution, primarily from coal plants. Then you have deaths already caused by anthropogenic global warming, and the numbers really start to mount.

ETA: Not to mention gas. How many people die or lose their houses each year after gas leaks? What about the risk of tank trucks full of gasoline catching fire, why are no one afraid of that happening?

So if the posters here, and the podcast, are right, then compared to all the different forms of energy we surround ourselves with and do not fear at all... nuclear power is nothing. As the podcast said:

We'd need a Chernobyl-type disaster every three weeks to reach the death toll of the coal and oil power we surround ourselves with.

 

[shawmutt]

I have a buddy that works on the Navy power plants--he "turned me on" to nuclear power. He explained the improvements in the construction of fuel rods, and the increased efficiency and reduced waste product over time. Pretty cool stuff.

I did see an interesting article comparing radioactive products from coal plants vs. nuclear. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

[Megalodon]

I'm all for a change to nuclear. You just have to see France to realize it's not a bad idea at all. But if IRC, the main problem in the US is the unwillingness to standardize reactor designs that makes the change to nuclear so costly. Every design has to go through the hoops...

 

[mhaze]

....My only concern about nuclear power, which you guys may be able to address, is that as far as I know, the reactors only last for fifty years, and then have to be dismantled, which is a costly and lengthy process. Is this true? If so, isn't it a rather strong argument against building nuclear power plants?

No. There are a lot of industrial sites that are reclaimed, and which are then used for other purposes. Obviously, a nuclear power site is not going to be later used for a shopping mall (Now just wait....someone'll prove me wrong!)

So what? I don't see it as a problem at all.

 

[tomwaits]

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And when it comes to nuclear, you get the healthiest, cheapest lunch possible.

 

[nescafe]

Hooray for Molten Flouride Salt reactors! They apparently make awesome breeder and power reactors, are virtually meltdown proof, and do not require pressure vessels. They also continuously reprocess their fuel so that there is no long-lived nuclear waste, and are not well suited to plutonium generation when run on U233 bred from thorium.

 

[Mark6]

I'm all for a change to nuclear. You just have to see France to realize it's not a bad idea at all. But if IRC, the main problem in the US is the unwillingness to standardize reactor designs that makes the change to nuclear so costly. Every design has to go through the hoops...

"France has 104 cheeses, but only one nuclear reactor design. US has 104 unique reactor designs but only one cheese."

 

[Eddie Dane]

No. There are a lot of industrial sites that are reclaimed, and which are then used for other purposes. Obviously, a nuclear power site is not going to be later used for a shopping mall (Now just wait....someone'll prove me wrong!)

So what? I don't see it as a problem at all.

In germany there is a fun park in a former nuclear power station.
http://www.weekendjewegnaarduitslan...ale-pretpark-kernwasser-wunderland-in-kalkar/

sorry, article in Dutch

 

[Abooga]

Is the issue of the waste really sorted out? What do they actually do with it? My feeling right now is that they´re not being particularly transparent about it...

 

[themusicteacher]

I never had any feelings strongly one way or the other but I have come to see that nuclear must be a short-term help to get us going exclusively towards truly renewable resources. The only issue is that it takes something like 6 years to get through the permitting process and then another five to seven to get the thing built. Certainly, we could speed up the permitting thing but I don't really want someone rushing though building a nuclear reactor. Obviously, nuclear is the least bad option and there are dangers aside from meltdown's and waste disposal (terrorism, accidents in transporting waste to disposal sites, etc.) that we could ned up paying for in the future but I'd rather the coal industry not get it's way and get to mine out the "three or four hundred years worth" of coal they say we have left.

If we can get a significant number of nuke plants, plus the wind and solar farms we have in the pipes, going within a decade or two, that should buy us some time to draw down coal and gas power. There are no sure bets but I believe we need to play the odds on this one.

 

[jbjr]

Is the issue of the waste really sorted out? What do they actually do with it? My feeling right now is that they´re not being particularly transparent about it...

There are differrent options for dealing with the waste. Right now in the U.S. we're just storing it. Most of it is stored right where it is produced, at the power plant. The most common method of storage is underwater in pools. Its used most because of the heat being genetrated from the used fuel. Above ground storage containers are also used. Its possible to recycle/reuse alot of the spent fuel that make up the largest percentage of nuclear waste. However due to policy decisions the U.S. is not doing that.

I dont really think there is any problem with transparency. The NRC is pretty clear about what has to be done with regards to storing the waste and the controls are incredibly strict, and even more so for moving it.

There's a video in google video (sorry cant post links yet) of the testing the did on the transportation casks. They crash it into a wall, twice, then the hit it with a train, then they submerge it in jet fuel and lit it on fire. Besides being a really cool video it show just how tough these things really are.

 

[tyr_13]

Besides that, spent rods are already only lightly radioactive. If the transport vessels did break, you just pick up the ceramic pieces and put them back on the truck/train/whatever.

I've been for nuclear power for a while now. I just do not understand the holdup, besides that for some odd reason people are afraid of it. I'm afraid of coal.

 

[WildCat]

It seems to me that nuclear power, as it currently exists, is a sort of necessary problem. I just don't see how we're going to be able to cover the immediate energy demands with solar and wind power (assuming we've rightly concluded that we need to get off the CO2 wagon immediately).

The cost of the plants, as you mentioned, and the problems surrounding the waste are inferior to the problems of global warming. So I say go nuclear fast. It's kind of like punting. Eventually we'll have to deal with spent fuel rods, but at least we can buy some time.

There won't be any nuke plants built as long as Obama is POTUS. He killed Yucca Mtn to appease Harry Reid, and no way no how will any nuke plants get built until a storage site is found.

 

[GreyICE]

Nuclear has always been a good option. There are some issues with it, but I think there's some good stuff out there. They have reactors that don't use refined uranium, for instance, eliminating a huge portion of the cost.

P.S. Obama seems to have nuclear on the plate, he just appears to be letting the scientists and experts decide for once. I find this a refreshing change from presidents who were convinced they were scientists (Bush... "I KNOW BETTER THAN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS..."). Not that Wildcat or his ilk would ever adopt a 'wait and see' position before condemning Obama of course.

 

[geni]

Hooray for Molten Flouride Salt reactors! They apparently make awesome breeder and power reactors, are virtually meltdown proof, and do not require pressure vessels. They also continuously reprocess their fuel so that there is no long-lived nuclear waste, and are not well suited to plutonium generation when run on U233 bred from thorium.

Experence very stongly suggests that all claims prior to actualy comercial experence about how good a reactor design is should be ignored.

 

[geni]

There won't be any nuke plants built as long as Obama is POTUS. He killed Yucca Mtn to appease Harry Reid, and no way no how will any nuke plants get built until a storage site is found.

Experence suggests otherwise. Putting off the storage issue has worked since 1956 I suspect it will be quite a while before people accept that the approach will not work indefinetly.