Why not nuclear power?

[Ringer]

With all the talk about Global Warming and how the USA is a major contributor to this problem, why aren't we looking into increasing our energy production through nuclear power? From what I understand, there are a few reasons why but they seem rather minimal compared to the long term benefits of nuclear power. These include:

- Disposal of nuclear waste
- Security of nuclear sites (terrorism)
- Nuclear meltdown
- Expense for building new facilities

I believe France generates approximately 75% of its power through nuclear fusion. Given these drawbacks, do you think it's feesible that a majority of the US's power come through nuclear power? Consider we are one of the top producers of greenhouse gases, I think this would greatly help the overall fight on global warming. So, what's the hold up? Too expensive? Too many powerful people making their money off oil?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My guess is it's a combination of the last thing you mentioned (too many powerful people making their money off oil), as well as an unfair phobia of nuclear power among the public.

 

[Draka]

With all the talk about Global Warming and how the USA is a major contributor to this problem, why aren't we looking into increasing our energy production through nuclear power? From what I understand, there are a few reasons why but they seem rather minimal compared to the long term benefits of nuclear power. These include:

- Disposal of nuclear waste
- Security of nuclear sites (terrorism)
- Nuclear meltdown
- Expense for building new facilities

I believe France generates approximately 75% of its power through nuclear fusion. Gigven these drawbacks, do you think it's feesible that a majority of the US's power come through nuclear power? Consider we are one of the top producers of greenhouse gases, I think this would greatly help the overall fight on global warming. So, what's the hold up? Too expensive? Too many powerful people making their money off oil?

I think you hit it with the last one. There are many energy options. Wind, water, solar, and nuclear. Any of those could be expanded and three of them are totally safe and constantly renewable. Why aren't we investing and expanding them? Oil = $$$

Granted, there is a fear when it comes to nuclear power. People will always think of Chernobyl. But technology is always evolving and progressing and safety precautions go right along with that.

I still can't help but wonder why we don't use more renewable ones like wind, water, and solar. Oh that's right...Oil = $$$

 

[doppelganger]

I believe France generates approximately 75% of its power through nuclear fusion.

I'm pretty sure you meant "fission." Since nobody has come up with a means to achieve cold fusion or harness the energy from a fusion reaction, there'd be no France if they were using fusion.

As for the OP, nuclear fission has a lot of major downsides, including the potential devastation from accidents and spills, and a particularly nasty waste product. However, it has gotten a lot better with modern technology (high-temperature gas-cooled reactors rather than water-cooled, for example). In my opinions, it's a matter of weighing the risks and benefits nuclear against the costs and risks of fossil fuels (into which I would include national security and the costs of these military aid programs, wars and occupations as well as the environmental costs), and the potential for generating our energy needs from cleaner, safer renewable sources.

My personal inclination, as of right now, is that as long was we remain truly dedicated to continuing to improve and expand technologies for cleaner, renewable energy sources, the risks and complications from fossil fuels are greater than the risks and complications with modern nuclear.

 

[yossarian22]

Logistics logistics logistics.
And angry greenpeace protesters, but mainly the former three.

A nuclear power plant needs alot of water. And I mean alot of water. Not every town can support them due to how much water they consume. Alot of it is simply shoved into the atmosphere. Now, we could use sea water, but salt is ridiculously corrosive. We would have to plate the water pipes with copper. Might not seem like to big a cost, until you realize you need to plate 100 mile long pipes with the stuff. Copper ain't cheap.

 

[PureX]

We should stop turning to these deadly stop-gap measures and just do what has to be done ... change to a solar/hydrogen system. It's the only real solution.

 

[doppelganger]

Logistics logistics logistics.
And angry greenpeace protesters, but mainly the former three.

A nuclear power plant needs alot of water. And I mean alot of water. Not every town can support them due to how much water they consume. Alot of it is simply shoved into the atmosphere. Now, we could use sea water, but salt is ridiculously corrosive. We would have to plate the water pipes with copper. Might not seem like to big a cost, until you realize you need to plate 100 mile long pipes with the stuff. Copper ain't cheap.

HTGRs (or VHTRs) solve much of this problem.

 

[astarath]

You forgot unemployment as the nuclear reactors as is my understanding do not require as many employees as the fossil fuel stations!

 

[Somkid]

I think most importantly is because we don't know how to dispose of the waste from nuclear reactors and the other obvious reason is because terrorists would love to get their hands on the waste.

 

[yossarian22]

HTGRs (or VHTRs) solve much of this problem.

Aren't the commercial versions just prototypes now?

Either way, it would be ideal to simply get a high efficiency thermo-electric material and just convert the excess heat into power. Silicon nanotubes are very good materials, and combined with some new production techniques for making 'em in bulk, we could see an efficiency boom in the next 20 years or so.

Anything's better than an internal combustion engine with 32% efficiency...

 

[rojse]

From what I understand, there are a few reasons why but they seem rather minimal compared to the long term benefits of nuclear power. These include:

- Disposal of nuclear waste
- Security of nuclear sites (terrorism)
- Nuclear meltdown
- Expense for building new facilities

These are not small reasons that you mention, and some of these are major objections to nuclear power.

Disposal of nuclear waste is a huge problem - the waste can be toxic for one hundred thousand years. Think about that for a moment. There are no serious management programs to store the waste for near this length of time, nor are there any ways known for decreasing the time required for the safe radioactive disposal. So, where do you store it all, and how will you store it so that it does not harm us or the environment?

Many of the sites that are being used are currently in areas where earthquakes are likely to occur, near fault lines and the like. You could imagine the potential disaster that could occur - for example, uranium waste leaking into groundwater.

Nuclear meltdown is an extremely serious issue, too. Although Chernobyl immediately comes to mind, there have also been other instances where there have been near disasters. A disaster like this does not merely affect the site of the plant, but also affects quite a large surrounding area, too.

Speaking in regards to Chernobyl, nuclear fallout from the accident reached the atmosphere, and settled in many diverse locations, such as East, West, and North Europe, and even as far as eastern parts of America. Not only that, but the radioactive particles reached into the food chain and into the water supply, too.

I think this is worth reading in regards to the health problems that resulted from the Chernobyl accident. Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terrorism is an obvious objective, which I do not need to go into here.

I do not consider the cost of construction to be a major issue, because there is a high cost for most other power generation techniques.

Separately, another objection you have not listed is that nuclear power plants can easily be used to generate material for nuclear weapons.

 

[kai]

and dont forget "i dont want one in my backyard" many people are terrified of it

 

[yossarian22]

Disposal of nuclear waste is a huge problem - the waste can be toxic for one hundred thousand years. Think about that for a moment. There are no serious management programs to store the waste for near this length of time, nor are there any ways known for decreasing the time required for the safe radioactive disposal. So, where do you store it all, and how will you store it so that it does not harm us or the environment?

We have more than enough rooms for landfills, why not nuclear waste?

Many of the sites that are being used are currently in areas where earthquakes are likely to occur, near fault lines and the like. You could imagine the potential disaster that could occur - for example, uranium waste leaking into groundwater.

They must account for this in under guidelines.

Nuclear meltdown is an extremely serious issue, too. Although Chernobyl immediately comes to mind, there have also been other instances where there have been near disasters.

Chernobyl was due to an awful design.
Look at the accident rates. If you are scared of a nuclear plant melting down, you must be terrified whenever you drive...

Terrorism is an obvious objective, which I do not need to go into here.

There was one very very large test of this. A company slammed a 747 into the building which housed the reactor. There was no damage. This is besides nuclear power plants having miniature swat teams on the premises.

 

[rojse]

We have more than enough rooms for landfills, why not nuclear waste?

The method you would use to dump your basic household waste is far different to what you would use to dump nuclear waste. The conditions for landfil are far less stringent, because of the health risks to people and wildlife, for example.

It isn't a site that needs to last fifty or one hundred years, it needs to last one hundred thousand years. It is not just a hole in the ground, it is a major installation that needs to be sealed, and kept guarded in case of possible terrorist attacks.

They must account for this in under guidelines.

They don't though - and one of the countries guilty of this was America.

Chernobyl was due to an awful design.
Look at the accident rates. If you are scared of a nuclear plant melting down, you must be terrified whenever you drive...

There have been quite a few other incidents and potential incidents besides Chernobyl. Three Mile Island, for example.

I have control over my car when I drive. Unless I work at the power plant, I do not have control of nuclear power. I do not see the comparison as relevant.

There was one very very large test of this. A company slammed a 747 into the building which housed the reactor. There was no damage. This is besides nuclear power plants having miniature swat teams on the premises.

You don't need to hijack a plane to do damage to a nuclear facility. What if you had someone on the inside that was willing to do things that he or she was not supposed to, such as increasing the energy release rate, or not cooling the equipment when it is supposed to? They could set the reactor on fire.

 

[yossarian22]

The method you would use to dump your basic household waste is far different to what you would use to dump nuclear waste. The conditions for landfil are far less stringent, because of the health risks to people and wildlife, for example.

I know that, but your issue was space. We clearly have enough of it.

It isn't a site that needs to last fifty or one hundred years, it needs to last one hundred thousand years. It is not just a hole in the ground, it is a major installation that needs to be sealed, and kept guarded in case of possible terrorist attacks.

The desert is not known for its severe corrosiveness, especially in the underground.

They don't though - and one of the countries guilty of this was America.

Can you cite an example of leakage due to an earthquake

There have been quite a few other incidents and potential incidents besides Chernobyl. Three Mile Island, for example.

Thats two. There are maybe around 40 nuclear power incidents.

I have control over my car when I drive. Unless I work at the power plant, I do not have control of nuclear power. I do not see the comparison as relevant.

It is entirely relevant. You do not have control over anything else while on the road. Especially the guy next to you. Given the fears about nuclear power despite the ridiculously low chance of anything major happening, you would logically expect people to be terrified of driving a car, or flying in a plane.

You don't need to hijack a plane to do damage to a nuclear facility. What if you had someone on the inside that was willing to do things that he or she was not supposed to, such as increasing the energy release rate, or not cooling the equipment when it is supposed to? They could set the reactor on fire.

Automatic safeguards. Most reactors have automatic safety modes which engage if the reaction rate goes above a certain point. This is besides the people on site who could easily stop it.

 

[rojse]

I know that, but your issue was space. We clearly have enough of it.

Space is not an issue. The issue is places where it can be stored that will allow for storage over one hundred thousand years. Space is only one problem.

The desert is not known for its severe corrosiveness, especially in the underground.

Agreed.

Can you cite an example of leakage due to an earthquake.

None that I can find yet, the article that I read about nuclear waste storage facilities mentioned that several nuclear waste repositories were sited close to earthquake zones, and went on to discuss what sort of problems could occur should there be an earthquake.

Thats two. There are maybe around 40 nuclear power incidents.

Considering the "ridiculously low" chance of anything happening, forty incidents in the time that we have used nuclear power, since the end of WWII, seems somewhat disproportionate.

It is entirely relevant. You do not have control over anything else while on the road. Especially the guy next to you. Given the fears about nuclear power despite the ridiculously low chance of anything major happening, you would logically expect people to be terrified of driving a car, or flying in a plane.

Regardless of your analogy about the car, I still have control of how I drive, and what sort of decisions I can make to avoid problems. If there is a problem with the guy next to me, I can simply slow down. It is not the case with nuclear power.

Any problem with another power generation source, although there might be serious problems at the plant, I do not have to concern myself with the effects if I do not work on-site or live extremely close to the plant.

For nuclear power, though, if there is a major incident, even if I live in a different country, it can affect me. The car analogy does contain a point, but when there is an accident in the next state, I do not have to concern myself.

Automatic safeguards. Most reactors have automatic safety modes which engage if the reaction rate goes above a certain point. This is besides the people on site who could easily stop it.

Where were the safeguards in the forty incidents you mention?

 

[DarkSun]

With all the talk about Global Warming and how the USA is a major contributor to this problem, why aren't we looking into increasing our energy production through nuclear power? From what I understand, there are a few reasons why but they seem rather minimal compared to the long term benefits of nuclear power. These include:

- Disposal of nuclear waste
- Security of nuclear sites (terrorism)
- Nuclear meltdown
- Expense for building new facilities

I believe France generates approximately 75% of its power through nuclear fusion. Given these drawbacks, do you think it's feesible that a majority of the US's power come through nuclear power? Consider we are one of the top producers of greenhouse gases, I think this would greatly help the overall fight on global warming. So, what's the hold up? Too expensive? Too many powerful people making their money off oil?

I wrote an essay against this, last year. I'll just grab it now.

 

[DarkSun]

An Illogical Epitome​

​

Nuclear power is possibly the most redundant way in which Australia could attempt at having an impression on climate change. Australia’s main power supply is predominantly sourced from coal plants. The energy produced in this way, is attributable to an exothermic reaction occurring chemically, between carbon compounds within coal and the air surrounding it. This method of gathering energy will produce large amounts of greenhouse gas. The net effect of these products adds to global warming, which is a serious environmental issue. Nuclear power, however, relies on the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom, which far surpasses the result of any chemical reaction. That does not make it better. Carbon dioxide production, toxic waste and the overall cost of nuclear power are each extremely negative attributes that concur with the nuclear fuel cycle. The disadvantages to nuclear power far outweigh the advantages.

Whilst a nuclear reaction itself will produce no greenhouse gas, the fabrication processes involved in enriching uranium ore, will. Global warming is a tragedy of the modern world, which will only become worse unless preventative measures are taken. Nuclear power is not the answer. Over a nuclear power plant’s life, these processes release 6.71 megatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (See Appendix Item 2). In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle produces four times as much carbon dioxide compared to other alternatives, such as wind, hydro or tidal power (See Appendix Item 1). Coal power, which produces twenty-six times as much carbon dioxide as nuclear power, is only technically worse. Nuclear power still produces two-hundred and thirty kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Therefore, opting for nuclear power will not end global warming, it will slow it. Nuclear power is not a prudent solution. This is a fact. Even if it weren’t true, the third world could never realistically be expected to invest in a large scale development in nuclear power stations (Energy Policy Dec. 1988. “Nuclear Power and Global Warming” (17/09/2007). [Internet] Available from: “http://www.sea-us.org.au/powertrip.html”). With this in mind, nuclear power is both flawed and unrealistic. Not only is this the case, but the carbon dioxide emissions concurrent with nuclear power will only increase, given time.

Nuclear power will never become less harmful, even with improving technology. Contrary to popular belief, the earth’s supply of relatively pure uranium ore is very limited, in that the earth consists primarily of low grade ores. These ‘lower grades’ have a lower concentration of the uranium compound, U*3O8 within them. As the grade of ore slowly decreases, it will take more and more energy to enrich and fabricate an equal amount of nuclear fuel. Carbon dioxide emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle will therefore, increase. It is known that the fabrication process currently accounts for 81.5 percent of a typical nuclear power station’s carbon dioxide emissions (See Appendix Item 2) and as the grade of ore decreases, this percentage can only increase dramatically. It is predicted that when the grade of ore used reaches between 0.1 and 0.0001 percent U3O8, then the carbon dioxide produced due to the nuclear fuel cycle will be equal to the carbon dioxide produced in a coal plant (See Appendix Item 3). In the long term, nuclear power fails to be of any benefit to the environment. Radioactive waste produced from spent uranium fuel is a key issue in that respect.

The products of the nuclear fuel cycle include not only greenhouse gas emissions, but wastes that may yield a far more daunting problem. Nuclear fuel consists primarily of minor actinides, such as uranium or plutonium. Uranium is generally used, since plutonium is a synthetic element which costs far more to produce. The most efficient isotope for uranium fuel, commonly of the form: uranium-235 undergoes fission within a nuclear generator to produce its energy. This quintessentially bombards the uranium-235 nuclei, with neutrons that effectively split them, into two smaller nuclei. However, the uranium-235 isotope only exists in nature at around 0.7 percent. The other 99.3 percent consists predominantly as uranium-238, which is not fissile. Due to its lack of worth, uranium-238 is discarded separately from the uranium-235. The main products of waste through the nuclear fuel cycle are uranium-238 and the spent fuel. Furthermore, usual time for alpha decay to occur within uranium-238 nuclei and produce thorium-234, normally takes 4.51 billion years to reach its half life (Zumdahl, 2007 p841-844), which is merely the time increment for half of the decay stage to occur. To put this into perspective, the sun of our solar system is only expected to maintain life on earth for another five billion years. With this in mind, the uranium-238 waste would outlast life itself (Hamilton, C et al. “Sun” (21/10/2007) [Internet] Available from: “Sun”). This is no small problem. Radiation emitted during this process can cause considerable detriment to the environment.

 

[kai]

well the truth is oil, gas, coal will all run out eventually then what ? cover the earth in windmills,

 

[DarkSun]

Therefore, far from providing resolution to global warming, nuclear power actively creates a greater dilemma. During the continued radioactive decay of the spent fuel and uranium-238, beta particles, alpha particles and gamma rays are produced, until the relatively stable: lead-206 nucleus is formed (Zumdahl, 2007 p844). The energy produced during radioactive decay is incredibly harmful to human-kind. It ionises the cells of surrounding organisms, causing them to multiply abnormally. It is truly daunting that if nuclear power were allowed to power but a tenth of Australia for one year, then an approximate mass of 15.1325 tonnes in radioactive material would be produced (See Appendix Item 4). One microgram of plutonium is enough to cause cancer (Conservation Council. “If Nuclear Power is the Answer it must have been A Pretty Stupid Question”. (17/09/2007). [Internet] Available from: “CCSERAC - 'If Nuclear Power is the answer, it must have been a pretty stupid question.'”)and put bluntly, humanity can not predict what unintended disasters could occur in the incomprehensible time-frame for which this wastes will be stored. The storage of such materials for millions of generations should be feared; no matter what safety precautions are undertaken.

Nuclear power is wasteful. The standard procedure for storing nuclear waste is to first cover it in water for several decades to let it cool. Australia has a bad enough water crisis on their hands, without the need to annually cover tonnes of any material in it. Further, after the cooling process is complete, this highly dangerous waste will be stored in the remote environment for billions of years. There are two means of storage at this stage. Firstly, to bury every six tonnes of waste obtained in one hundred tonnes of steel or secondly, to entomb it likewise in borosilicate glass (Uranium Information Centre Ltd. “Radioactive Waste Management”. (24/09/2007). [Internet] Available from: “http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm”). Both of these options imply not only an unprecedented application of resource, but a massive consumption of fossil fuel. Nuclear power is said to be environmentally friendly. However, this statement now makes no sense. In addition with this, the long and short term economic benefits of nuclear power are severely questionable.

Furthermore, one great appeal to nuclear power is that the fuel itself, costs little to produce (See Appendix Item 5). This will not last. It will cost more money to enrich lower quality ores into standard quality fuel, when they must be used. The US Department of Energy (1989) has stated that: … the world’s uranium supplies that are recoverable at a reasonable cost would be unlikely to last more than fifty years. Given that we are now approaching 2008, if Australia wishes to integrate nuclear power as a source of energy, this would only ever be economically practical for another thirty-one years. Therefore, it is not a long term solution. In light of the two facts that carbon dioxide emissions, and that the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle, will both accelerate over time; there is truly little point in calling it a solution at all. Further, the cost involved through the entire nuclear fuel cycle will eventually exceed that of coal power.

It is relatively common that nuclear power is praised for its alleged cheapness. There is no reason for this. Overall, nuclear power is more expensive than coal. The mean, world-wide cost of producing wattage from nuclear power lies between 6.02 Australian cents per kilowatt hour and 6.55 Australian cents per kilowatt hour. Coal, however, is much cheaper overall, where the mean, world-wide cost to produce the same unit of power lies between 4.91 Australian cents per kilowatt hour, and 5.36 Australian cents per kilowatt hour (See Appendix Item 7). The inexpensiveness of nuclear fuel production, at 0.67 Australian cents per kilowatt hour, in no way compensates for other costs, such as the decommissioning of radioactive waste, security and maintenance measures, and regulatory fees (See Appendix Item 6). In conjunction, as the grade of uranium ore used slowly regresses, the cost of producing nuclear fuel will increase. The gap between the costs of nuclear power versus coal power will become even greater. When this occurs, every positive attribute nuclear power has been given, which has not already been proven baseless, will be rendered ludicrous. However, there is a solution.

Nuclear power is one of the worst resolutions to current environmental issues, but, it is not the only form of resolve. The employment of a large scale renewable energy scheme would make much more sense, since it has been shown to produce an equal unit of power to nuclear energy, with only a slight discrepancy in cost. For example, solar power costs approximately 5 US cents per kilowatt hour (Bruce Thompson et al. “Nuclear Power and Global Warming”. (17/09/2007). [Internet] Available from: “http://www.sea-us.org.au/powertrip.html”) which is equivalent to 6.67 Australian cents, per unit of power. This is only 0.12 cents per kilowatt hour higher than the aforementioned mean cost of nuclear power. It is certain that as the grade of ore on this planet decreases, the cost necessary to produce nuclear power will increase dramatically, and in doing so, will surpass the cost of other sources of renewable energy, such as solar. As has been stated, these sources of renewable energy produce approximately four times less carbon dioxide than the nuclear fuel cycle (See Appendix Item One), and this gap is also prone to widen in the foreseeable future. Both economically, and environmentally, nuclear power fails as a long term energy alternative. There are no real advantages to nuclear energy.

Using nuclear power is a desperate attempt to save our earth from global warming, but it defies all reason. There are other alternatives which are just as effective. Even more so when Australia employs nuclear power, and the grade of uranium ore depletes such a state that it will become more affordable, and ecological, to have committed to renewable power. Eventually, the enriching process of uranium ore will produce just as much carbon dioxide as coal plants ever would have, and more. In no way is nuclear power a solution. It will not solve global warming. After thirty-one years, Australia will be back to the place it was, with nothing but thirty-one years worth of highly radioactive waste to show for it. That’s 469 tonnes of deadly waste, covered in resources that Australia is already limited in, such as water. The motive behind this is unclear, when renewable resources can perform just as well a job. In our modern world, nuclear power represents a truly illogical epitome.