Skeptics and nuclear power

[Crossbow]

I'd like a clarification: are you in agreement that it's mainly a political issue?

By all means, I will be glad to provide you with clarification.

Yes. I do agree that for the most part the development of a good nuclear waste site is mainly a political issue as many of the technical problems with nuclear waste disposal have been overcome.

However, I do also agree with the serious concerns voiced by the anti-waste site protesters concerning the proper collection, transportation, and eventual disposal of nuclear waste.

After all, considering how terribly toxic nuclear waste can be, then one should be terribly concerned about such things.

I hope this helps.

 

[Crossbow]

The primary issues with long term management of nuclear waste are political and cultural, not technical.

A key thing here is that there are two schools of thought on how to manage waste:

One idea is to reprocess it to separate out the hottest materials, which are then reused as fuel. The hot stuff then never needs to be disposed of, only low-level waste. That seems to be favored by most nuclear advocates but is politically unacceptable due to concerns about proliferation and the need to transport materials to and from reprocessing facilities.

The second idea is vitrification and deep geological disposal - pulverized everything, mix with molten glass, let it cool and stick it deep underground. This could happen with or without reprocessing, but is usually advocated alongside no-reprocessing. Then it gets controversial because they are burying stuff that is still very radioactive and will be for tens of thousands of years. (There is also the separate issue of misinformation suggesting that very long half-life = really dangerous. Once you get into half-lives of millions of years, you are dealing with stuff that is not much more meaningfully radioactive than a granite countertop).

I'm all about reprocessing and reuse as fuel. The most dangerous of the dangerous stuff never needs to be in the waste stream as it currently is.

Thank you.

I do quite agree that the "primary issues with long term management of nuclear waste are political and cultural, not technical".

However, I would like to point out that political and cultural issues are quite serious issues all the same.

Solving technical problems is often far easier than managing public opinion, but public opinion is what democracy is supposed to be about.

After all, just look at how long it took us to give up slavery, give women the right to vote, give Indians the right to vote, allow gay marriage, and so on.

 

[CORed]

Economic scale back and mass die off.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

Individually, stockpile non-perishable food, guns and ammo, if you want to maximize the (probably still very low) probability of surviving the mass die off.

 

[crescent]

If you reprocess somewhere other than the reactor site, the materials have to be transported. IMO, these are all manageable risks, but nobody wants the reprocessing facility in their backyard, nor do they want the materials transported through their neighborhood.

I am guessing that you and I are on pretty close to the same page on this - but I want to point out that the materials are going to be transported with or without reprocessing. They are either transported to the reprocessing facility, or to the long term disposal site (should one ever be approved), but they are still going to be transported.

The only other option is to permanently leave the waste in temporary holding facilities, which most of the current practice in the U.S.

I've heard Mike Shellenberger claim that when he was more aligned with the anti-nuclear side of the environmental movement, he attended meetings in which the some of the groups pretty openly espoused a strategy of making the nuclear power industry drown in its own waste. They were going to oppose any long-term storage sites or strategies, regardless of how low the actual risk really was.

 

[Belz...]

However, I would like to point out that political and cultural issues are quite serious issues all the same.

Often played up, however. People are often hard to convince because they're ill-informed, biased or deliberately misled.

 

[Crossbow]

Often played up, however. People are often hard to convince because they're ill-informed, biased or deliberately misled.

Quite true!

However, all votes count equally regardless of the motive behind the votes.

 

[Belz...]

That's both a good thing and a bad thing.

Stupid reality, not giving us ideal solutions!

 

[Crossbow]

That's both a good thing and a bad thing.

Stupid reality, not giving us ideal solutions!

Well said indeed!

As a famous actor once said in a famous movie:

"So let it be written.

So let it be done."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

[...]waste can be managed far better today[...]

FWIW, a couple of weeks ago the company I work for supplied some bits and pieces for an event at a nuclear power plant (actually in the waste storage facility itself), and what it was in aid of was that they had just moved a bunch of waste into a new storage unit they'd built. One of the guys who worked there said something to one of my colleagues about how the previous generation had just left the waste for this one rather than solving the problem of what to do with it. My colleague asked whether he wasn't doing exactly the same thing, to which he replied yes, but that the next generation will have figured out what to do with the waste by then.

This is just one power plant and what they've done, and it's not exactly a scientific statement of intent, but this one example doesn't sound like they're managing the waste particularly at all, but are instead just leaving it sitting round and hoping that someone else will sort it out in the future.

 

[lomiller]

Reprocessing gets the maximum utilization of the fuel resource. If I understand correctly, with current technology, only a fraction of the fuel is used before the reaction is poisoned by fission products and the fuel is "spent". You have to reprocess if you want to use the rest of the U-235 (and plutonium produced during operation). The problem is that reprocessing is a pretty hazardous process. You are dealing with highly radioactive materials, and also materials that could potentially be diverted for weapons. If you reprocess somewhere other than the reactor site, the materials have to be transported. IMO, these are all manageable risks, but nobody wants the reprocessing facility in their backyard, nor do they want the materials transported through their neighborhood.

Reprocessing alone improves but doesn’t maximize the utilization of the fuel. Fast cycle breeder reactors can also use the U238 that makes up most of the fuel by converting it to Plutonium as the reactor runs. They can produce up to 50X to 100X the energy (or the same energy with 1%-2% of the waste). Reprocessing alone is more like 3X-4X IIRC.

 

[Crossbow]

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.

Just in case you are still interested, here is what I had to say about nuclear power nearly fourteen years ago and I still hold to this opinion:

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.

 

[Craig B]

I can't because I have no idea how one thing is related to the other. How about you clarify and tell me why you think steel is relevant?

But regardless of my answer, the fact remains that coal plant waste IS radioactive.

I can't believe you need this clarified, but just in case you're being serious, here goes. The German High Seas fleet was coal fired. The ships were exposed throughout their service life to coal, ash and smoke, which suffused every part of these vessels. In 1919 they were scuttled while interned in Scapa Flow. Do they exhibit radioactivity on account of their protracted exposure to coal and ash, some of which must have been sunk with them? Evidently, very little. So little radioactivity do they register that they are a major source of Low-background steel^WP, which is

any steel produced prior to the detonation of the first atomic bombs in the 1940s and 1950s. With the Trinity test and the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and then subsequent nuclear weapons testing during the early years of the Cold War, background radiation levels increased across the world. Modern steel is contaminated with radionuclides because its production used atmospheric air. Low background steel is so called because it does not suffer from such nuclear contamination. (My bolding) This steel is used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting radionuclides.​

Now please explain that absence of radioactivity. But please don't keep asking why the question is relevant, if as you say, coal plant waste is radioactive. These ships contained coal plants and their waste when they went to the bottom. How much radioactivity does that represent, if it is there, considering that the material is "used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting nucleotides"?

 

[Belz...]

I can't believe you need this clarified

Well, maybe you weren't been half as clear as you thought you were. Just because it makes sense in your head doesn't mean it'll make sense to anyone else.

The German High Seas fleet was coal fired. The ships were exposed throughout their service life to coal, ash and smoke, which suffused every part of these vessels. In 1919 they were scuttled while interned in Scapa Flow. Do they exhibit radioactivity on account of their protracted exposure to coal and ash, some of which must have been sunk with them? Evidently, very little. So little radioactivity do they register that they are a major source of Low-background steel^WP, which is

any steel produced prior to the detonation of the first atomic bombs in the 1940s and 1950s. With the Trinity test and the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and then subsequent nuclear weapons testing during the early years of the Cold War, background radiation levels increased across the world. Modern steel is contaminated with radionuclides because its production used atmospheric air. Low background steel is so called because it does not suffer from such nuclear contamination. (My bolding) This steel is used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting radionuclides.​

Now please explain that absence of radioactivity. But please don't keep asking why the question is relevant, if as you say, coal plant waste is radioactive. These ships contained coal plants and their waste when they went to the bottom. How much radioactivity does that represent, if it is there, considering that the material is "used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting nucleotides"?

Well, Yuppy's already addressed that. I think you're confusing things. Nuclear weapons and coal plants are not the same thing. The radioactivity you speak of is not due to nuclear waste. We're talking about coal waste, not emissions. Would the waste contained in a ship like this compare to the waste of a coal plant? I don't know. Would it be expected to contaminate the steel? I don't know. But it's a fact that waste from a coal plant is radioactive.

Have you made any effort to look up whether said waste is radioactive? I ask because your line of questioning implies that you don't believe it is.

 

[Craig B]

Well, maybe you weren't been half as clear as you thought you were. Just because it makes sense in your head doesn't mean it'll make sense to anyone else.



Well, Yuppy's already addressed that. I think you're confusing things. Nuclear weapons and coal plants are not the same thing. The radioactivity you speak of is not due to nuclear waste. We're talking about coal waste, not emissions.

Have you made any effort to look up whether said waste is radioactive? I ask because your line of questioning implies that you don't believe it is.

If you think that, provide figures and sources. Can you answer my question about the ships? All your responses up to now look like misdirection and obfuscation as well as disingenuous claims of failure to understand. Does your first sentence above mean you still don't understand my point? If so, I will repeat it in simpler terms, if such is possible.

 

[ginjawarrior]

250 kWh/d is a ridiculous amount of electricity. Looking it up, the US average is 900 kWh per household per month. So try about 10 per person-day and see if your sky is still falling.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[ETA] Nor is insolation anywhere near as low as 15 Wh / m^2 / day. Desert insolation is easily 6 kWh/m^2/d. These numbers are complete crap.

[ETAA] Assuming he's trying to factor in solar cell efficiency, he's assuming an efficiency of 0.25%, instead of ~25%. You can't just put decimals anywhere you please.

[ETAAA] **** it, I'm triggered. With 115 million American households, call it 125, at 30 kWh/household/day, is 3.75 billion kWh/day. Call it four. 6 kWh insolation at 25%, call it 20%, is 1.2 kWh/day. So we'll need 3.333 billion square meters of solar, or a square of about 60 kilometers on a side. So look at the little red square inside the yellow square and imagine another little square inside of that, and that's what you'd need if this dumbass had gotten his numbers even remotely right to begin with.

calm down now lol

he's using the total energy used per capita not just household useage

if you look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
looking at the 2013 entry for usa it works out to 221kwh/d/p

now David Mackay wrote this in 2008 as a back of an envelope rough idea of scales so im happy at 221kwh/d/p

as to the rest i'll refer you to his notes..

178Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers an average power per unit area
of roughly 15 W/m2. My sources for this number are two companies making
concentrating solar power for deserts.
www.stirlingenergy.com says one of its dishes with a 25 kW Stirling engine
at its focus can generate 60 000 kWh/y in a favourable desert location. They
could be packed at a concentration of one dish per 500 m2. That’s an average
power of 14 W/m2. They say that solar dish Stirling makes the best use of
land area, in terms of energy delivered.
www.ausra.com uses flat mirrors to heat water to 285 °C and drive a steam
turbine. The heated, pressurized water can be stored in deep metal-lined
caverns to allow power generation at night. Describing a “240 MW(e)” plant
proposed for Australia (Mills and LiÈvre, 2004), the designers claim that
3.5 km2 of mirrors would deliver 1.2 TWh(e); that’s 38 W/m2 of mirror. To
find the power per unit land area, we need to allow for the gaps between
the mirrors. Ausra say they need a 153 km by 153 km square in the desert to
supply all US electric power (Mills and Morgan, 2008). Total US electricity
is 3600 TWh/y, so they are claiming a power per unit land area of 18 W/m2.
This technology goes by the name compact linear fresnel reflector (Mills and
Morrison, 2000; Mills et al., 2004; Mills and Morgan, 2008). Incidentally,
rather than “concentrating solar power,” the company Ausra prefers to use
the term solar thermal electricity (STE); they emphasize the benefits of ther-
mal storage, in contrast to concentrating photovoltaics, which don’t come with
a natural storage option.
Trieb and Knies (2004), who are strong proponents of concentrating solar
power, project that the alternative concentrating solar power technologies
would have powers per unit land area in the following ranges: parabolic
troughs, 14–19 W/m2; linear fresnel collector, 19–28 W/m2; tower with helio-
stats, 9–14 W/m2; stirling dish, 9–14 W/m2.
There are three European demonstration plants for concentrating solar power.
Andasol – using parabolic troughs; Solúcar PS10, a tower near Seville; and
Solartres, a tower using molten salt for heat storage. The Andasol parabolic-
trough system shown in figure 25.4 is predicted to deliver 10 W/m2. Solúcar’s
“11 MW” solar tower has 624 mirrors, each 121 m2. The mirrors concentrate
sunlight to a radiation density of up to 650 kW/m2. The receiver receives
a peak power of 55 MW. The power station can store 20 MWh of thermal
energy, allowing it to keep going during 50 minutes of cloudiness. It
was expected to generate 24.2 GWh of electricity per year, and it occupies
55 hectares. That’s an average power per unit land area of 5 W/m2. (Source:
Abengoa Annual Report 2003.) Solartres will occupy 142 hectares and is
expected to produce 96.4 GWh per year; that’s a power density of 8 W/m2.
Andasol and Solartres will both use some natural gas in normal operation.

http://www.withouthotair.com/c25/page_184.shtml

 

[ginjawarrior]

Ok so coal is too polluting, wind is insufficient, nuclear is too dangerous, hydro too limited geographically and solar too surface-intensive.

Ok, so what now?

im a skeptic in support of nuclear power

 

[ginjawarrior]

The same can be said for proponents of Nuclear. It really all stems from the fact we are digging up and burning fossil plants/animals on a scale that is nearly unimaginable. There is no single solution to this problem.

most nuclear supporters i have spoken have been quite knowledgable about the problems

what scales have you found them to be not understanding?

 

[bobdroege7]

I can't believe you need this clarified, but just in case you're being serious, here goes. The German High Seas fleet was coal fired. The ships were exposed throughout their service life to coal, ash and smoke, which suffused every part of these vessels. In 1919 they were scuttled while interned in Scapa Flow. Do they exhibit radioactivity on account of their protracted exposure to coal and ash, some of which must have been sunk with them? Evidently, very little. So little radioactivity do they register that they are a major source of Low-background steel^WP, which is

any steel produced prior to the detonation of the first atomic bombs in the 1940s and 1950s. With the Trinity test and the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and then subsequent nuclear weapons testing during the early years of the Cold War, background radiation levels increased across the world. Modern steel is contaminated with radionuclides because its production used atmospheric air. Low background steel is so called because it does not suffer from such nuclear contamination. (My bolding) This steel is used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting radionuclides.​

Now please explain that absence of radioactivity. But please don't keep asking why the question is relevant, if as you say, coal plant waste is radioactive. These ships contained coal plants and their waste when they went to the bottom. How much radioactivity does that represent, if it is there, considering that the material is "used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting nucleotides"?

Coal waste is radioactive because coal contains small amounts of uranium, which is basically everywhere there is rock. Burning the coal concentrates the radioactivity in the waste, but the steel from the ships doesn't get contaminated because it is not molten, which is why modern steel contains the radioactive nuclides from the testing of nuclear weapons because they were in the air when the steel was molten.

Basically coal contains about 1 ppm uranium and coal waste roughly 10 times that.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

 

[Belz...]

If you think that, provide figures and sources.

Why can't you look it up? It takes just a few seconds to google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Coal

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste

This literally took me less than a minute to search, check and copy-paste. Seriously, what's your excuse? Someone makes a claim that can't possibly be arcane or difficult to look up, and you just cross your arms and say "nope"?

I'll also remind you that I didn't say it was particularily radioactive. I'm pointing out that it IS radioactive, to show that nuclear waste is not unique in that regard. The toxicity of coal waste, however, was the main point I was making in that post, because these things _never_ stop being toxic.

Can you answer my question about the ships?

No. Hopefully you don't think that my being not an expert in these matters somehow means you're right, because then I could throw in the fact that you don't know how the universe came into being as proof of God. Or Zeus.

All your responses up to now look like misdirection and obfuscation as well as disingenuous claims of failure to understand.

How the hell can it possibly "look like" this since I've been very straightforward and clear with you? Is it simply because you're not getting the answers you want? All you've done in this exchange is be incredulous. In response to my post about coal waste radioactivity, instead of looking it up, you dredged up a link about pre-WWII ship steel. How twisted is that?

 

[Belz...]

Coal waste is radioactive because coal contains small amounts of uranium, which is basically everywhere there is rock. Burning the coal concentrates the radioactivity in the waste, but the steel from the ships doesn't get contaminated because it is not molten, which is why modern steel contains the radioactive nuclides from the testing of nuclear weapons because they were in the air when the steel was molten.

Wow. That is so obvious, one wonders why I didn't think of it. Guess I'm not half as smart as I like to think I am.