the case for nuclear power

[Hindmost]

Coming back to this point, this is only a list of the current producers, not neccessarily those with the most uranium. Does anyone know if these countries actually do have the biggest deposits? And even if they do, do more politically stable countries have enough for themselves anyway? As mentioned previously, Britain has it's own deposits in the Orkney Islands. How much do we have and how much would we actually need?

The US (if that is the "we" you are talking about) has significant reserves of uranium--essentially enought to supply existing reactors and supply new plants for 40 to 60 years. In addition, due to a slowdown in the industry, there has not been much interest in looking for new reserves since uranium ore became very cheap. Uranium mines closed down due to low prices. (Australia has some of the largest reserves, but uranium is essentially everywhere. )

Waaaaaaaaaay back in the 70s when I was in school, the amount of uranium ore in the US was sufficient to supply all reactors being constructed and projected to be constructed for a minimum of 40 years without having to import any. At the time, reactors were being ordered in large numbers. Worldwide, there was not any type shortage projected for foreseable future of reactor operation.

If breeder reactors are brought online in sufficient numbers, then the supply of fissionable material would be good for several hundred years.

I would really have to do some more research to give more accurate info..

glenn

 

[Azure]

My main problem with nuclear power is that no one has ever really figured out what to do with the radioactive waste.

Until that is resolved, I have real problems with nuclear power.

Until then we'll continue using up fossil fuels, and creating pollution.

 

[Lonewulf]

Until then we'll continue using up fossil fuels, and creating pollution.

But fossil fuels aren't radioactive!!!1111oneone

Nuclear pants will make us all into mutantz!!1111

 

[Azure]

But fossil fuels aren't radioactive!!!1111oneone

Nuclear pants will make us all into mutantz!!1111

Yeah, sure, okay, whatever.



France went from importing resources to create electricity, to creating nuclear plants, and they are currently exporting electricity.

But no, we will all die from the radioactive waste!!!

The US has just been nuking Nevada for 60 years, and I'm still waiting for 'one' person to die from the radioactivity.

 

[Lonewulf]

The US has just been nuking Nevada for 60 years, and I'm still waiting for 'one' person to die from the radioactivity.

Nukes (the weapons and the plant waste) are so overstated, it's not even funny. It's like, when it's radioactive, suddenly everything changes.

Don't think about the many many chemical plants sitting around that can be potentially tons more hazardous than nuclear waste, especially when cracked open; they're not radioactive, hence they're a different scenario.

And I've heard claims with seemingly arbitrary numbers thrown out that, say, a nuclear bomb pollutes a region for "millions and millions" of years (I think one estimate I saw was, like, 700,000 years, or 7,000,000. I could never keep track of the arbitrary 0s). While radiation tends to screw up with the local fauna and flora, and certainly makes things like crops inedible, I have to wonder why people can repopulate locations like Chernoybl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Nukes (the weapons and the plant waste) are so overstated, it's not even funny. It's like, when it's radioactive, suddenly everything changes.

Don't think about the many many chemical plants sitting around that can be potentially tons more hazardous than nuclear waste, especially when cracked open; they're not radioactive, hence they're a different scenario.

And I've heard claims with seemingly arbitrary numbers thrown out that, say, a nuclear bomb pollutes a region for "millions and millions" of years (I think one estimate I saw was, like, 700,000 years, or 7,000,000. I could never keep track of the arbitrary 0s). While radiation tends to screw up with the local fauna and flora, and certainly makes things like crops inedible, I have to wonder why people can repopulate locations like Chernoybl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

There's actually some evidence that low levels of radiation have no effect or a small beneficial effect w.r.t cancer. Something about stimulating the bodies' DNA repair mechanism I think.

 

[Hindmost]

But fossil fuels aren't radioactive!!!1111oneone

Nuclear pants will make us all into mutantz!!1111

Any evidence of mutation from nuclear plants????

Fossil fuels are radioactive...they have carbon 14, uranium and thorium in them. They also have traces of mercury, lead and other metals. You wouldn't believe how much mercury is thrown into the air by coal fired plants.

Uranium is more chemically hazardous than it is from radioactivity...causes kidney failure.

glenn

Uranium and thorium keep the planet warm by the way...without them, the earth would be an ice cube by now.

 

[Cuddles]

The US (if that is the "we" you are talking about) has significant reserves of uranium--essentially enought to supply existing reactors and supply new plants for 40 to 60 years. In addition, due to a slowdown in the industry, there has not been much interest in looking for new reserves since uranium ore became very cheap. Uranium mines closed down due to low prices. (Australia has some of the largest reserves, but uranium is essentially everywhere. )

The "we" was really just anywhere planning on having electricity (definately not meaning the US, since I'm in Britain). So basically we don't have anywhere near enough uranium, but this is mainly because no-one has bothered looking for it. 40 to 60 years is really not a significant supply. The biggest argument against fossil fuels is not pollution, but simply that they are going to run out, and probably fairly soon. Trying to replace them with something that will run out even sooner seems a little silly really. Of course, fast breeders solve that problem, but come with much bigger political and environmental issues.

 

[Hindmost]

The "we" was really just anywhere planning on having electricity (definately not meaning the US, since I'm in Britain). So basically we don't have anywhere near enough uranium, but this is mainly because no-one has bothered looking for it. 40 to 60 years is really not a significant supply. The biggest argument against fossil fuels is not pollution, but simply that they are going to run out, and probably fairly soon. Trying to replace them with something that will run out even sooner seems a little silly really. Of course, fast breeders solve that problem, but come with much bigger political and environmental issues.

The US reserves of coal are quite large...at least 200 years. However, I don't consider that a long time. Energy is such an issue over the next decades.

Higher cost of uranium will start the cycle of discovery and mining most likely. Proven reserves in Australia, Russia,South Africa, US and other places would keep up with demand in the foreseeable future just because it takes so long to design a build plants and the capital cost. There is just no way the world could start building 200 plants starting within the next year. There aren't enough engineers or heavy vessel capacity or construction workers...etc. The 40 to 60 years was conservative at the time and based on an "all nuclear" electricity grid...I do not know of any recent studies that would change it.

The problems associated with breeders are really not much more than light water reactors with the exception of handling the Pu239 blob. . It makes a good nuke core. Light water reactors do produce Pu 239 as well, it just gets significantly burned in the reactor or gets converted to Pu 240 or 241 which is useless for bomb building. Stealing high level radioactive waste from a nuke plant would be relatively impossible due to the special handling equipment needed. However, recycled fuel using Pu239 could be a problem--the Pu 239 could be separated and used in a fission type of bomb...however, it would not be easy. You would have to have an enourmous amount of equipment. A dirty bomb would be the more likely outcome...Pu is dangerous from a radiological standpoint...inhale a few micrograms and you're toast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium has a reasonable writeup on Pu.

glenn

 

[Lonewulf]

Any evidence of mutation from nuclear plants????

...?

If you were taking my post as serious, you seriously need to relook through this thread and maybe take a couple of Sarcasm Classes.

If not, you still bring up an interesting point. I was under the impression that nuclear radiation could mess with the body, but I'm not sure if it would affect actual births. I do know that it can really screw up the structure of your current body with the right rays, but nothing involving actual birth.

Intriguing question, though. I wonder if there are evidence of mutations, no matter how minor...

 

[Hindmost]

...?

If you were taking my post as serious, you seriously need to relook through this thread and maybe take a couple of Sarcasm Classes.

If not, you still bring up an interesting point. I was under the impression that nuclear radiation could mess with the body, but I'm not sure if it would affect actual births. I do know that it can really screw up the structure of your current body with the right rays, but nothing involving actual birth.

Intriguing question, though. I wonder if there are evidence of mutations, no matter how minor...

Actually, I was being Claus...

Radiation is actually really bad for kids, pregnant women and anyone that is planning on getting pregnant. Radiation damages cells from ionization. The cells can repair themselves most of the time before there is any issue. However, cells that multiply quickly have problems repairing themselves before reproduction occurs...this causes problems. Therefore any cells that reproduce quickly are most vulnerable--one can't be a radiation worker in the US until a certain age and women are excluded from exposure depending on what their reproductive plans are. Blood, digestive track , fetuses, reproductive organs are therefore most damaged by radiation.

There really isn't a bunch of data on radiation inducted mutations. It definitely occurs, but the effects are typically difficult analyze because statistically there just isn't enough data. However, with the nuclear power industry, there hasn't been any increase in cancer rates or death rates for radiation workers in the US when compared with the rest of the population. I don't know about the uranium mining industry. It would take a long time for me to research it all thoroughly.

glenn

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually, I was being Claus...

'Kay. I'll just go take a couple of humor classes then. Apologies.

Radiation is actually really bad for kids, pregnant women and anyone that is planning on getting pregnant. Radiation damages cells from ionization. The cells can repair themselves most of the time before there is any issue. However, cells that multiply quickly have problems repairing themselves before reproduction occurs...this causes problems. Therefore any cells that reproduce quickly are most vulnerable--one can't be a radiation worker in the US until a certain age and women are excluded from exposure depending on what their reproductive plans are. Blood, digestive track , fetuses, reproductive organs are therefore most damaged by radiation.

There really isn't a bunch of data on radiation inducted mutations. It definitely occurs, but the effects are typically difficult analyze because statistically there just isn't enough data. However, with the nuclear power industry, there hasn't been any increase in cancer rates or death rates for radiation workers in the US when compared with the rest of the population. I don't know about the uranium mining industry. It would take a long time for me to research it all thoroughly.

Well, it makes sense to me. They do have very rigid safety regulations, after all. Heck, nuclear power is primarily mucho expensive as a result of 'em. At least, that's my impression.

 

[Hamradioguy]

Intriguing question, though. I wonder if there are evidence of mutations, no matter how minor...

Surprisingly (To the anti-nuke crowd anyway) there really isn't good evidence of mutations....in humans anyhow. The Japanese A bomb survivors and there progeny have been closely studies for over 60 years. Pregnant women exposed to very high doses of radiation did in some cases suffer spontanious abortions. Babies born full term had no more mutations than those in non-exposed populations (Keep in mind that the normal mutation rate in humans is quite high- I've seen figures stating 10 percent....the vast majority being of a very minor type.) There have been a few published studies showing a weak link between radiation exposure and human mutation but they are in the minority and there's never been any strong correlation.

If there are mutations caused by exposure to ionizing radiation they are so rare as to be "burried in the noise" of random mutations caused by all other sources.

Sorry, Glenn if this just rehashes what's in your last post.....

 

[Cuddles]

Intriguing question, though. I wonder if there are evidence of mutations, no matter how minor...

 

[Lonewulf]

[qimg]http://www.hippieshop.com/mas_assets/thumb/16159.jpg[/qimg]

Classic response.

 

[Hindmost]

Surprisingly (To the anti-nuke crowd anyway) there really isn't good evidence of mutations....in humans anyhow. The Japanese A bomb survivors and there progeny have been closely studies for over 60 years. Pregnant women exposed to very high doses of radiation did in some cases suffer spontanious abortions. Babies born full term had no more mutations than those in non-exposed populations (Keep in mind that the normal mutation rate in humans is quite high- I've seen figures stating 10 percent....the vast majority being of a very minor type.) There have been a few published studies showing a weak link between radiation exposure and human mutation but they are in the minority and there's never been any strong correlation.

If there are mutations caused by exposure to ionizing radiation they are so rare as to be "burried in the noise" of random mutations caused by all other sources.

Sorry, Glenn if this just rehashes what's in your last post.....

No need to apologize...feel free to amplify and correct my errors.

I read a long time ago that many survivors of the A-bomb blasts in Japan were very reluctant to used for studying radiation effects. It went against cultural issues. But your response correlates with what I have studied in the past.

glenn