Skeptics and nuclear power

[macdoc]

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,

a) low level nuclear storage long term is well developed.

b) high level nuclear storage is pointless as 90% of the energy remains and can be accessed by existing technologies.

and even some newer technologies.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...t-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste

c) there is vanishing little high level waste.

The entire high level waste of 60 years of nuclear power in the US would fill a football field 3 meters deep.....

The biggest headache is there is no standarization on nuclear reactors...imagine if each plane had to be designed and custom built ( sort of like the space industry is just moving out of ).

Industry can buy reliable gas turbines that are proven over the years .....Westinghouse and GE came close to cookie cutter plants but regulations are stifling.

Nuclear is here for a while, we can built more reactors next to those we have but I suspect not cost effectively.

 

[Oystein]

Skeptic here - and quite surprised at the handy majority of nuclear fans.

I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear power as in "shut down all plants now and never start again" - the risks of modern plants are non-zero, but not on a doomsday scale. I remember having seen an early draft of someone calculating roughly the number of deaths per TWh of produced energy, and it turned out that nuclear power after Chernobyl and Fukushima compared very favorably to coal (mining accidents, health issues related to pollution, long-term effects of AGW...), and still nicely with solar power (where, for example, people falling off roofs while installing or servicing panels are surprisingly many - per TWh). But I would not want to see a marked increase of nuclear power, as each big accident affects just too much of continent - and the waste just multiplies, with no solution in sight.

I see it as a necessary evil for a short time, until the many ways to harness (and intermediately store) the sun's and the earth core's heat combine for enough to end the waste of both fossil and nuclear resources.

 

[arthwollipot]

I seem to be the only one declining to answer, and it's for this reason: I don't think either question is best answered in a black-and-white manner.

Yes, my worldview is "skeptical" and I have at times identified myself as "a skeptic", especially to other people who also identify as "skeptics" but I don't like labels, especially ones that the population at large has such a negative opinion of. So I generally don't pigeonhole myself as "a skeptic".

I also believe that nuclear power is probably going to be a necessary part of the world's energy future, but I do not believe that it will or should be the only or even the best option, so I hesitate to wholeheartedly put myself onto one side of the binary.

 

[Belz...]

But I would not want to see a marked increase of nuclear power, as each big accident affects just too much of continent - and the waste just multiplies, with no solution in sight.

Too much of continent? How much damage do you think the incidents so far have done?

I see it as a necessary evil for a short time

I really dislike this sort of thinking. Generating energy on a large scale is inherently dangerous. Hydro and coal and nuclear are not exceptions. They all carry risks and we have to accept them if we want to have electrical power for millions. Nuclear isn't an evil, nor is it temporary. It's part of a long line of electricity technologies and will possibly stick around for centuries or more.

 

[kedo1981]

Thorium now, thorium for ever.

 

[Trebuchet]

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.

The hysteria predates Chernobyl, and TMI, by a lot. Largely a left wing (and I'm in that category) Nuclear = BOMB!!! mindset. Sometimes I'm kind of sad to be a lib, then the Trumptard opens his mouth/twitter.

 

[theprestige]

The hysteria predates Chernobyl, and TMI, by a lot. Largely a left wing (and I'm in that category) Nuclear = BOMB!!! mindset. Sometimes I'm kind of sad to be a lib, then the Trumptard opens his mouth/twitter.

I dunno. Trump will only be with us for a few years at most. The liberal opposition to nuclear power has been doing its damage for decades, and shows no signs of letting up.

 

[lomiller]

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.

The only fission technologies truly capable of replacing fossil fuels are breeder type reactors that don’t produce the same volume of waste, and in fact can burn waste as fuel.
The lifespan of the problems that could potentially be created is really the issue with nuclear power. I saw the Nova special last year on the new containment facility at Chernobyl and was suppressed at how much of an ongoing, in progress disaster that really is. There still is no known way to stop the nuclear reaction and up until now all they have done is build ever larger containment faculties around it, and these are destined to fail LONG before it stops releasing high levels of radiation.

Even if it’s safe and low risk nuclear plants are effectively un-insurable. Even governments can’t truly underwrite the risk because any problem cold outlive even the most stable of systems.

Nuclear power plants need to be re-designed from the ground up, with meltdown-proof designs before

CANDU, mentioned above is already about as meltdown proof as you can ask, at least in theory. It’s sub-critical in air or normal water so as soon as the heavy water drains of evaporates the reaction stops. This doesn’t mean you can’t run into issues with the waste as happened in Fukushima, but It’s possible even the waste from CANDU is safer.

 

[Hans]

Voted against present system but not (if we ever get it) fusion.

I use to be a strong supporter of nuclear but as the systems cannot be ensured against failure. I've cooled my jets about their wide spread use.

 

[Belz...]

The only fission technologies truly capable of replacing fossil fuels are breeder type reactors that don’t produce the same volume of waste, and in fact can burn waste as fuel.
The lifespan of the problems that could potentially be created is really the issue with nuclear power.

Is it? Nuclear waste is dangerous for a number of millennia. That's pebbles for the planet. On the other hand, coal waste, which is also radioactive, incidently, is toxic forever, and in much greater quantities for the same MWh.

I saw the Nova special last year on the new containment facility at Chernobyl and was suppressed at how much of an ongoing, in progress disaster that really is. There still is no known way to stop the nuclear reaction and up until now all they have done is build ever larger containment faculties around it, and these are destined to fail LONG before it stops releasing high levels of radiation.

Wait a minute. That the remains of the reactor are radioactive doesn't mean the nuclear reaction is still ongoing. There's nothing to sustain it.

 

[Belz...]

Voted against present system but not (if we ever get it) fusion.

Why? Although fusion produces a smaller quantity of radioactive waste it still does. And nuclear is still safer than its competition in terms of death per MW.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Fusion is energy of the future .. and will always be ..
No srsly, we are at least 20 years away, but more likely more. Do not bet on fusion just yet. Even after we manage to hold plasma, the problems of energy harvesting, durability, operation costs, safety, it's all unsolved .. mainly because it all depends on the system for managing the reaction in the first place.
Pressurized water reactors are kinda matured technology .. but we need more .. it's time to experiment with other systems .. especially molten salt. That could bring costs down drastically and improve safety.
But even with old technology .. nukes are the only way how to go carbon neutral. Sun and wind are just not enough to replace coal and gas.

 

[lomiller]

Wait a minute. That the remains of the reactor are radioactive doesn't mean the nuclear reaction is still ongoing. There's nothing to sustain it.

It’s still emitting dangerous amounts of radiation and will continue to do so at a level that requires containment for 10 000+ year, and the original containment facility barely lasted 30.

 

[Belz...]

It’s still emitting dangerous amounts of radiation and will continue to do so at a level that requires containment for 10 000+ year, and the original containment facility barely lasted 30.

So you misspoke when you said "There still is no known way to stop the nuclear reaction"? Because there is no such thing onging at Chernobyl.

Chernobyl is the worst possible incident that can happen at a plant, and happened in the worst possible design you could think of for such a facility. I think it's so outside the norm that constantly seeing it used as an example of the evils of nuclear power smacks of ideological agenda.

 

[ahhell]

Is it? Nuclear waste is dangerous for a number of millennia. That's pebbles for the planet. On the other hand, coal waste, which is also radioactive, incidently, is toxic forever, and in much greater quantities for the same MWh.



Wait a minute. That the remains of the reactor are radioactive doesn't mean the nuclear reaction is still ongoing. There's nothing to sustain it.

Technically it does mean a nuclear reaction is still going on but its very misleading to but it in those terms. Like saying a fire is still burning because there's some embers still there.

On the other hand, I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread. Nuclear is safer and produces less waste and pollution than the majority of our power supply, which is fossil fuel based.

Nuclear should be part of a package that includes solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and even natural gas. We should phase out coal and petroleum.

 

[Segnosaur]

I remember having seen an early draft of someone calculating roughly the number of deaths per TWh of produced energy, and it turned out that nuclear power after Chernobyl and Fukushima compared very favorably to coal (mining accidents, health issues related to pollution, long-term effects of AGW...), and still nicely with solar power (where, for example, people falling off roofs while installing or servicing panels are surprisingly many - per TWh).

Actually, I think you might be underestimating the safetly of nuclear power. I've seen similar analysis that measure deaths per KwH, and in those cases Nuclear comes out much better.

And its not only people falling off roofs when installing solar panels that have to be considered... Nuclear is a fairly 'dense' energy technology... you don't need many raw materials to generate a whole lot of power. By comparison, Solar and Wind require a lot more raw materials to generate the same amount of power. That means more mining deaths, more manufacturing deaths, etc.

For example: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf
Electricity produced from natural gas has the lowest risk of the 11 technologies (five conventional, six non-conventional) It is a factor of about two lower than the next highest, nuclear power....The main reason why non-conventional systems (eg. Solar and wind) have relatively high risk is the large amount of materials and labour they require per unit energy output.

Or: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#113320e0709b
Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (2% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)[/i]


Now, some may be skeptical of the sources (one is from a government atomic energy agency after all), but it still points to Nuclear being less deadly than Solar or wind.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Solar power is still increasing in efficiency, whereas even new Generation III+ and IV reactors have serious cost and construction time overrun issues.
Most importantly, solar farms have comparatively tiny investment costs and can easily take advantage of future innovations.
But a reactor once build will mostly be confined to its original design, which by the half-time of operation will 50 years behind the edge of progress.

 

[Belz...]

Solar power is still increasing in efficiency, whereas even new Generation III+ and IV reactors have serious cost and construction time overrun issues.

I wonder if solar's ever going to become the tits, however. There's the little issue of not always having a sun to draw from.

 

[lomiller]

So you misspoke when you said "There still is no known way to stop the nuclear reaction"? Because there is no such thing onging at Chernobyl.

The reaction is still occurring at a sub-critical rate. I just see no need to debate the degree to which the reaction is still occurring when the real issue is the span on which it requires containment.

 

[Belz...]

The reaction is still occurring at a sub-critical rate. I just see no need to debate the degree to which the reaction is still occurring when the real issue is the span on which it requires containment.

The point is that it's not a sustained chain reaction. It's very important to distinguish these, especially given the hysteria relating to nuclear technologies.