Skeptics and nuclear power

[Belz...]

Can you back this up with evidence - that coal waste prodices more radioactivity in the waste per MWh than nuclear reactors?

That bears no ressemblance to what I said. I said that coal waste, which is also radioactive, is toxic forever, and that it is created in much greater quantities for the same MWh.

Bloody nonsense.

What are you talking about? Don't you know how this technology works? You can't just leave U-235 lying around and expect it to sustain a chain reaction. The reactor stopped working back in 1986.

 

[Segnosaur]

Can you back this up with evidence - that coal waste prodices more radioactivity in the waste per MWh than nuclear reactors?

From: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.
...
estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Again, that sounds like a movie script. You can't easily use a reactor to generate weapons-grade material except if the facility is designed for that.

But you need enrichment plants to get mined uranium to reactor-usable levels.

This technology can easily be extended to reach weapons-grade concentrations.

 

[Belz...]

But you need enrichment plants to get mined uranium to reactor-usable levels.

This technology can easily be extended to reach weapons-grade concentrations.

I'm not sure it's that easy, but yes, it could be.

The problem is that there is no easy solution (well, that was an awkward sentence!) If we don't want to go all nuclear because of the risks, but can't sustain coal, and can't meet our needs with solar and wind (not without mining the hell out of the planet to get all the materials needed to build all those panels and mills), and hydro is not applicable to enough places, we have to mix and match.

 

[macdoc]

Oystein

That's difficult to assess, isn't it?
a) Chernobyl sprayed radioactive traces far and wide - with surprising levels in Scandinavia, Schottland... You can't really put in numbers the damage done, as it is a statistical function. Few deaths can be attributed directly outside the region, due to lack of measurable evidence, but they are surely non-zero.
b) Think also of how much future accidents might spread: It obviously depends on location and current wind patterns. I recently saw simulations of what might happen if the Belgian reactor at Tihange blows up, given a variety of actual, historical weather patterns. Damage could remain within a small region (but be extremely severe there), it could spread out to one or more of four neighbouring countries, it could lay waste to population centers and economic power regions with millions of inhabitants - and in some cases, it could affect a narrow but extremely long strip stretching all the way across Poland into Russia and the Baltic states.

You provide an exact example of the kind of nonsensical fear mongering prevalent in the anti-nuke crowd.

You know exactly nothing about radiation or nuclear risks.

We live in sleeting radiation, trillions of neutrinos in a moment, we developed in a radiation universe....there are cities with higher background radiation than allowed in a nuclear plant, I'VE had radation levels that could kill if not targetted.....every time you get on a plane you are irradiated, go to a dentist, get a chest x-ray .....

Don't spout fearmongering nonsense....

 

[CORed]

That bears no ressemblance to what I said. I said that coal waste, which is also radioactive, is toxic forever, and that it is created in much greater quantities for the same MWh.



What are you talking about? Don't you know how this technology works? You can't just leave U-235 lying around and expect it to sustain a chain reaction. The reactor stopped working back in 1986.

It really depends on how you define "nuclear reaction". There is no nuclear fission going on at Chernobyl (since a fairly short time after the reactor blew up), but alpha and beta decay could be considered "nuclear reactions" and there is plenty of that still going on there (and in every bit of rock or dirt on the planet containing uranium and its decay products).

 

[CORed]

I voted "skeptic in favor of nuclear power". IMO nuclear power gives us the best chance of mitigating global warming without wrecking the economy. Renewables certainly can play an important role, but we are still going to need either fossil fuel or muclear (or more likely both) for baseline power.

 

[Oystein]

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.

A thing that will steadily go on at a dangerous rate for 10,000+ years is "not sustained". That is some doublespeak.

 

[Belz...]

A thing that will steadily go on at a dangerous rate for 10,000+ years is "not sustained". That is some doublespeak.

That's like saying that drifting debris from a boat means that the ship is still afloat.

Oystein, this isn't a minor distinction or doublespeak. There is a world of difference between uranium's natural radioactive decay and the forced chain reaction sustained by a reactor. Don't dismiss this out of hand. I think the problem is that you have a profound ignorance of nuclear technology, and I would suggest that you read up on how it works before reaching conclusions about anything related to the topic.

 

[Oystein]

Can you realistically store enough power in batteries during the day while all the consumption is going on to power half of the planet during the other half of the rotation?

Simple answer: Yes.
That's just a matter of engineering smarts and investment dollars.

Dams for power storage? What do you mean?

That's old technology. But works well: Use excess energy to pump water up the hill, then use that potential energy in downhill turbines when you need the energy back.

 

[ahhell]

A thing that will steadily go on at a dangerous rate for 10,000+ years is "not sustained". That is some doublespeak.

What you're missing is that it's not a chain reaction, its radioactive decay. Which as noted, happens all the time all around us, its just a little more concentrated in Chernobyl.

It is important to distinguish between a chain reaction and radioactive decay due to the widespread misunderstanding of the subject.

 

[ahhell]

That's old technology. But works well: Use excess energy to pump water up the hill, then use that potential energy in downhill turbines when you need the energy back.

This may actually be one of the most efficient and clean ways to store energy currently. Capital costs are high for obvious reason. Takes a lot of effort to dig a couple of big holes in the ground, pipes and what not.

 

[Belz...]

That's old technology. But works well: Use excess energy to pump water up the hill, then use that potential energy in downhill turbines when you need the energy back.

Yes, obviously. For some reason I didn't understand what he meant.

That's just a matter of engineering smarts and investment dollars.

I think it's presumptuous of anyone to guess where technology can be taken.

 

[Oystein]

I don't think you can "surely" say this. Low-level radiation of this sort has no known negative impact, especially at that range. We only know for sure of about 50 deaths related to that incident. ETA: and before you trot out the 10,000 projections, those are based on extrapolations not supported by any sort of data.

We don't know "for sure" that it was only those 50, do we?

So what I said was correct: It's difficult to assess.

I think that's based on media hype. I don't think nuclear is particularily more dangerous than any other type of energy-related incident, except perhaps in a local fashion.

I think you are bizarrely wrong.

Can you name one "energy-related incident" as dangerous as Chernobyl or Fukushima - with any eye to local short-term AND long-term effects, and the mid-range and long distance effects? Do not forget to appreciate the 10,000+ years of costs that will incur.
There have been terrible mining desasters, but those desasters were strictly limited in space and time to the time they happened.
There have been terrible oil spills, affecting large areas over long spans of time, but luckily with few people at actual risk.
There have been terrible desasters with broken damns, but again, effects are strictly local and limited in time.

So please, tell me how energy related incidents can be as dangerous as nuclear-related incidents!

Again, that sounds like a movie script. You can't easily use a reactor to generate weapons-grade material except if the facility is designed for that.

That sound as if you haven't even begun to think about this topic.

 

[CORed]

Nuclear power plants need to be redesigned from the ground up. With modern computers and controls, it should be safe and effective.

Also a big believer in nuclear power or at least radioactive decay for space probes.

The biggest problem with currently used designs is the decay heat problem. After you shut down the fission reaction, which is easy to do, the radioactive decay of fission products generated enough heat to melt down the reactor, unless you keep enough cooling water circulating. There is nothing you can do to stop the decay of fission products. This is what did in Fukushima: The eathquake and tsunami knocked out grid power, and the tsunami flooded the auxiliary diesel generators needed to keep the cooling water circulating.

There have been designs proposed that would enable the decay heat to be dissipated passively, which would be a significant improvement. There are also completely different technologies, like molten salt reactors.

 

[Oystein]

That bears no ressemblance to what I said. I said that coal waste, which is also radioactive, is toxic forever, and that it is created in much greater quantities for the same MWh.

Then elucidate please what fear the word "radioactive" in that claim is supposed to strike into us! My poop is "radioactive", if you are pedantic. Is this at all relevant?
Coal waste is "toxic" - which coal waste, what are the actual effects of this toxicity, and does it require ongoing care for the next 10,000 years? I am really completely void of knowledge on these things.

What are you talking about? Don't you know how this technology works? You can't just leave U-235 lying around and expect it to sustain a chain reaction. The reactor stopped working back in 1986.

Something is keeping that Chernobyl core hot and dangerous today. And in 100 years. And in 10,000 years.
What is it?
I say "a radioactive reaction".
Is that wrong? No, it isn't. It is bloody nonsense and doublespeak to deny that this failed reactor has radioactive reactions going on on a dangerous level for millennia to come.

 

[Belz...]

We don't know "for sure" that it was only those 50, do we?

Well, that follows from us only knowing of those 50 for sure, doesn't it? But I'm sure you're well aware that using that fact to argue that more "surely" have died is an appeal to ignorance.

So what I said was correct: It's difficult to assess.

Oh, that's an understatement.

Can you name one "energy-related incident" as dangerous as Chernobyl or Fukushima - with any eye to local short-term AND long-term effects, and the mid-range and long distance effects? Do not forget to appreciate the 10,000+ years of costs that will incur.

The problem is that you are falling into the media trap of sensationalism. Sure, Chernobyl (a power plant almost designed to fail catastrophically) and Fukushima (a design 10 year older but much more sturdy, but hit by a thousand-year tsunami) are flashy, newsworthy events. But how many people died in those events? We know of at least fifty for the first and two for the second. How many people died from coal-related incidents you never heard about?

That's why looking at deaths per MW is a better indicator, and nuclear is _by far_ the safest of the energy generation alternatives on that measure. Safer still than solar, actually.

There have been terrible mining desasters, but those desasters were strictly limited in space and time to the time they happened.

And yet they killed more people. You're letting yourself be swayed by the emotional impact of these events.

That sound as if you haven't even begun to think about this topic.

You're just lashing out now because your ignorance of this topic has been revealed by some of your comments, particularily your "bloody nonsense" quip, which showed that you don't know the first thing about the technology.

 

[Oystein]

From: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.
...
estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities.

Thanks.

 

[Oystein]

I'm not sure it's that easy, but yes, it could be.

The problem is that there is no easy solution (well, that was an awkward sentence!) If we don't want to go all nuclear because of the risks, but can't sustain coal, and can't meet our needs with solar and wind (not without mining the hell out of the planet to get all the materials needed to build all those panels and mills), and hydro is not applicable to enough places, we have to mix and match.

I can fully agree with that.
In my assessment, we shall be able eventually to produce and intermediately store enough energy absorbed from the sun through whatever pathways to make both fossil fuels and nuclear obsolete. I do not say that nuclear should be phased out first, I am saying it probably won't need to be vamped up, given the advances in solar and battery technology.

 

[Belz...]

Then elucidate please what fear the word "radioactive" in that claim is supposed to strike into us!

It shouldn't strike any fear at all. Lead and mercury aren't radioactive but they sure are damned toxic, and it's a lot easier to get them into your system. The problem is largely the media and entertainment industries, in addition to anti-nuke groups, that have made sure that the word "radiation" itself is toxic.

Coal waste is "toxic" - which coal waste, what are the actual effects of this toxicity, and does it require ongoing care for the next 10,000 years? I am really completely void of knowledge on these things.

You're getting hung up by a minor part of my post. The "radioactive, incidently" part was just incidental. The main part of the post, which you've failed to address, was that coal waste is extremely toxic, will always remain toxic, contrary to nuclear waste, and exists in far larger quantities for the same amount of power produced. Isn't that a much bigger problem? And yet we just churn out the stuff without a care in the world.

Something is keeping that Chernobyl core hot and dangerous today.

Yes, it's called radiation. Radiation is hot.

And in 100 years. And in 10,000 years.
What is it?
I say "a radioactive reaction".
Is that wrong? No, it isn't.

Now who's engaging in doublespeak? You are simply unable to admit to being wrong. The point I was trying to make, and which I've made now more than once, is that there is no sustained chain reaction in the reactor. It's just decaying naturally. You can call that a reaction, but it's misleaing because it implies that the chain reaction is still ongoing, which is just not true.

Do you want to be accurate, or do you want to just win the internet?