Why not nuclear power?

[DarkSun]

Bibliography​

Australian Bureau of Statistics. “Energy Use”.
[Internet] Available from: “1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2007”
(26/09/2007)
This gave the statistic that a total of 17,524 PJ of energy were used by Australia in 2005. This was used in Appendix Item 4.

Author Unknown. “Population”
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.nationmaster.com/country/as-australia”
(26/09/2007).
This gave the statistic that there were 20,434,176 people in Australia as of 2007. This was used in Appendix Item 4.

Author Unknown. “Uranium Enrichment”
[Internet] Available From: “Light Water Nuclear Reactors”
(24/10/2007)
This gave the information that uranium-235 is the isotope of uranium used in a nuclear reactor, not uranium-238. It also showed how abundant uranium-238 is in comparison to uranium-238.

Thompson, B. et al. “Nuclear Power and Global Warming”.
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.sea-us.org.au/powertrip.html”
(17/09/2007).
This site gave very good background information towards Global Warming and Nuclear Power. Thompson incorporated a lot of Dr. Nigel Mortimer’s concepts. Backed up his report. This site quoted the US energy department. This quote was placed within this essay, too. From it, it is known that 31 years of reasonably priced Uranium is left.


Conservation Council. “If Nuclear Power is the Answer it must have been A Pretty Stupid Question”.
[Internet] Available from: “CCSERAC - 'If Nuclear Power is the answer, it must have been a pretty stupid question.'”
(17/09/2007).
Gave very good information regarding nuclear energy in general. It gave the statistic that one microgram of plutonium could give you cancer.

Dr. Mortimer, N.). “The World Warms to Nuclear Power”.
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/mortimer_se74.php”
(27/09/2007)
Gave invaluable information about the CO2 production caused by Nuclear Power. Graphs from this page were used in Appendix Item 1, 2 and 3. This supported what I wanted to say excellently.

Greens Department. “Energy Economics vs. Energy Politics”.
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.greens.org/s-r/38/38-18.html”
(26/09/2007).
This gave the information that 101,680 PJ of energy was used by America 1995. This was used in Appendix Item 4.





Hamilton, C et al. “Sun”
[Internet] Available from: “Sun”
(21/10/2007)
This site gave the information that the sun would sustain life for another 5 billion years. It put the value half life of uranium-238, to thorium-234, of 4.51 billion years into context. It also gave some well-intended effect.

Deardorff, K. and Montgomery P. “National Population Trends”.
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/nattrend.html” (26/09/2007)
This gave the statistic that there were 261,638,000 American citizens as of 1995. This was used in Appendix Item 4.

Nuclear Tourist. “Cost Comparison for Nuclear vs. Coal”.
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm”
(24/09/2007).
This gave very good economic background into nuclear power. It showed the one area which nuclear power is more cost efficient and the three areas that it isn’t, to coal. This was used in appendix item six.

Costello, Peter. “The Changing Face of Australia”
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/speeches/2007/012.asp”
(26/09/2007).
This gave the statistic that there are 2.57 people per home in Australia. This was used in Appendix Item 4.



Zumdahl, Steven and Zumdahl, Susan. (2007) “Chemistry: Seventh Edition”
Houghton Mifflin Company : New York. (p.841 – 844)
This explains the basics of Nuclear Chemistry. It was a very good orientation.

Uranium Information Centre Ltd. “Overview of Nuclear Energy”.
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.uic.com.au/introduction.htm”
(17/09/2007).
This gave the information that 1000 homes power by nuclear power, mean that 30kg of spent fuel will arise in the US. It was used in Appendix Item Four.

Uranium Information Centre Ltd. “Radioactive Waste Management”.
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm”
(24/09/2007).
Gave information on how they dispose of radioactive waste.

Uranium Information Centre Ltd. “The Economics of Nuclear Power”.
[Internet] Available from: “http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm”
(17/09/2007).
This gave the table for Appendix Item 7 and the graph for Appendix Item 5. From the former, it was possible to find the mean cost of nuclear power across six continents that use it. From comparisons between that and coal, it was possible to find that the overall cost of nuclear power is MUCH higher than that of coal. Item 5 shows that nuclear fuel itself is currently cheapest.

 

[DarkSun]

Sorry about that.

^_^'''

 

[Valjean]

No matter how sophisticated the technology, things will always break. Unexpected problems will always occur. With a coal fired power plant or municipal incinerator the effects of a major breakdown would be relatively local. With a nuclear plant radiation could blanket thousands of square Km. After Chernobyl dairies were dumping radioactive milk in Scandinavia, for heaven's sake!

It doesn't matter how well-armored the reactor itself is. Something as simple as a bomb or nerve gas secreted in a control room worker's lunch box could precipitate a major cascade of mounting problems.
If the reactor just outside of New York City went, the city might have to be abandoned for decades. We did almost loose Chicago once, in a carefully hushed-up incident.

In my mind the biggest problem with the proliferation of nuclear power is the safe disposal of the huge quantities of radioactive waste they'd generate. With trucks and trains of nuclear waste criss-crossing the country there will, inevitably be accidents. There will be thefts. There will be illegal dumping.

Even in my own state (New Mexico) it's not unusual to pick up the evening paper and read about yet another nuclear dump site being discovered from the cold war era, or an underground plume of contaminated, radioactive water discharging into a river or contaminating wells.

In the southern part of the state they recently opened a nuclear waste repository deep in a huge, underground salt deposit. But, it turns out, the site isn't as dry as they'd calculated. There's water infiltrating through it.
And where did that salt come from in the first place? From the sea, of course. Much of the American Southwest was once underwater, and, considering recent climatic trends, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine the salt -- and the nuclear waste -- again in solution, in much less than 100,000 years.

 

[DarkSun]

If the reactor just outside of New York City went, the city might have to be abandoned for decades. We did almost loose Chicago once, in a carefully hushed-up incident.

Hundreds of millenia, more like...

 

[Panda]

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?

Fission not Fusion. They are completly different. Fission occurs with the heavy elements (iron is the divide, above that is heavy). A neutron is fired at an atom which rips the atom apart can causes more neutrons to fly out to hit other atoms.
Fusion is using the light elements. You fuse two atoms together to form a bigger atom. When the two nucleuses get close the strong nuclear force pulls them together to make one nucleus.

 

[Panda]

To answer the OP.

Nuclear fission has several problems.
Firstly the half life of fission fuel is very high, I think about 2000 years. This is a problem is there is any major leakage etc.
Secondly waste disposal is a huge problem. Often the waste is kept in giant swimming pool things as water is a very good shield from radiation but it is still radioactive for a very long time.
Of course also the consequences of a nuclear meltdown are very severe.

On the plus side uranium is 1000 times more power than it's equivalent weight in coal. Nuclear reactors also don't spit out 100 of tonnes of carbon dioxide. Using nuclear power would mean we are no longer so dependent on the Middle East for our fuel supplies.

However I do not think fission is the way forward. I think fusion is, I mentioned this in another topic. Instead of just repeating myself I will just quote myself.

I think the French have it right(wow that feels weird to say) 80% of their power is from nuclear plants.
However I do really like the idea of nuclear fusion though it has some serious problem currently. Mainly it is not giving out as much power as it is taken in. Secondly in hydrogen fusion a reaction between Deuterium and Tritium (both hydrogen isopotes) is the easiest to use. Deuterium is a naturally ocurying isotopte of Hydrogen and is relativly easy to obtain compared to enriching uranium for a fission reaction. However Tritium is radioactive, not naturally occuring and hard to contain. It has to be made from lithium. During the reaction it is likely Tritium would escape and if done on a large scale could cause some issues.
Though on the plus side it produces helium which is completly harmless. And although it is radioactive Tritium has a half live of 12.5 years making it relatvly easy to decomission and take out of use compared to tradition reactors. Also it is extremly difficult to use the reactor for nuclear weapons making it impossible for people to use them to secretly build nuclear weapons. Using lithium from the sea we have 60 million years worth of fuel at our current production level and if we use a more complicated Deuterium to Deuterium reaction we have 150 million years of fuel.

 

[Kungfuzed]

I have a question. If nuclear waste generates so much radiation, why can't we get energy from that radiation? Why throw away something that's still cranking out energy?

 

[Ringer]

Fission not Fusion. They are completly different. Fission occurs with the heavy elements (iron is the divide, above that is heavy). A neutron is fired at an atom which rips the atom apart can causes more neutrons to fly out to hit other atoms.
Fusion is using the light elements. You fuse two atoms together to form a bigger atom. When the two nucleuses get close the strong nuclear force pulls them together to make one nucleus.

You're right. I don't know how I got the two mixed up but I was refering to Fission. I think it was too late for me edit the post so my mistake has to stand as is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Some reactor designs don't just let the water blow away. The CANDU reactors in Ontario use lake water for cooling, which allows for them to do what you alluded to (i.e. suck in water for cooling and then spit it back out a bit warmer).


I saw a talk last week from a professor who's currently researching ways to produce hydrogen cheaper and more efficiently. He suggested that the most practical way he could see to produce hydrogen on a commercial scale with the processes he was working on would be to use a nuclear reactor: the heat from the reactor would be used by the hydrogen plant (through a process I don't fully understand involving the "Cu-Cl cycle") to separate water into H2 and O2.

I think there are a number of negatives associated with nuclear power, but I see the situation almost as an either/or proposition: if you don't want to use fossil fuels to run your car or generate your electricity, there are only a small number of other options. If you don't happen to be in a part of the world that allows things like hydroelectric or geothermal power, then your only option for your base power requirements* is combustion or nuclear, IMO.



* I realize that there are other sources like wind and solar (and maybe tidal) that have fewer impacts, but they're intermittent; you can use them to reduce the demand for other sources, but they're not really suitable to use to meet base demand. Even on windless nights, people still need to be able to run their lights and refrigerators.

 

[yossarian22]

Some reactor designs don't just let the water blow away. The CANDU reactors in Ontario use lake water for cooling, which allows for them to do what you alluded to (i.e. suck in water for cooling and then spit it back out a bit warmer).

Even those lose a great deal of water. There are limitations to how much water they can dump into a lake because the hot water tends to kill of plants and animals. Some still evaporates, and there are not lakes everywhere we would want them to be.

I saw a talk last week from a professor who's currently researching ways to produce hydrogen cheaper and more efficiently. He suggested that the most practical way he could see to produce hydrogen on a commercial scale with the processes he was working on would be to use a nuclear reactor: the heat from the reactor would be used by the hydrogen plant (through a process I don't fully understand involving the "Cu-Cl cycle") to separate water into H2 and O2.

There are lots of interesting ideas. There is some research into directly converting fusion energy into electricity instead of using heat as a middle man. That could generate more power than it takes to start it up, because we can't absorb all the heat. Another option is getting some good thermoelectric materials and plating the reactor. Silicon nanowires look ideal for this.

I think there are a number of negatives associated with nuclear power, but I see the situation almost as an either/or proposition: if you don't want to use fossil fuels to run your car or generate your electricity, there are only a small number of other options. If you don't happen to be in a part of the world that allows things like hydroelectric or geothermal power, then your only option for your base power requirements* is combustion or nuclear, IMO.

That is entirely true. Nuclear is unfortunately not a universal solution, nothing ever really is.

 

[yossarian22]

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.
Agreed.

The desert seems to be the best bet. If the cost of launching a pound into orbit drops low enough, we could just fling the stuff into space.

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.

So, nothing has actually happened?

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.

Its actually less for civilian use. Counting military use is somewhat skewed due to its experimental nature.
Either way, the odds of being in an accident is 1 in 3000 (this data is old, and probably out of date by now). The odds of being in a fatal accident are 1 in 100,000.
Here is a list of nuclear power incidents.
List of civilian nuclear accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most are not even related to nuclear power itself, but simply radiation exposure.

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.

How you drive has a low effect on your likelihood of being in an accident, (assuming reasonable driving habits). The actions of others dictate your chances. Do you have control over the other guy speeding through a red light? No. Do you have control over mudslides, over the grip on the other guys tire, his reaction time, your reaction time, the weather, visibility, and the list goes on. You have extremely low control over anything at all. Even if you do not accept this analogy, the chances of being in a plane crash are a few orders of magnitude higher than being in a nuclear accident. You have no control over your flight. If you are scared of nuclear power accidents, you are probably terrified over lots of other mundane things you do every day.

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.

So what?
Lots of things could affect you, but they rarely do. The area of effect is irrelevant to the odds of it happening. Chernobyl stands as a fairly isolated incident due to how many people were exposed. It also had more to do with incompetence and design than nuclear power itself.

Where were the safeguards in the forty incidents you mention?

I was referring to the chance of terrorist activities. Forcing a meltdown is nearly impossible in a modern plant.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

You know the man who made the first nuclear reactor? Enrico Fermi? I know his grand-nephew. Luke Fermi. I know a kid who relative is in the periodic table.. FM Fermium

 

[DarkSun]

I have a question. If nuclear waste generates so much radiation, why can't we get energy from that radiation? Why throw away something that's still cranking out energy?

Because it's far too unstable. Uranium-235 has a half-life of several billion years, but after fission, the resultant nuclei have a much shorter half-life. It decays too quickly, and as such, it's more difficult and hazardous to use.

 

[DarkSun]

To sum up what I said in my essay.

While nuclear power doesn't produce greenhouse gas during the fission process, the nuclear fuel cycle, does. How many oxides, hydrides, and nitrides of carbon do you think are produced in the actual refinement process of U3O8 ore to pure U-235? It's a lot.

Even though the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions are currently far less in the nuclear fuel cycle than with coal power, this is likely to change. Despite popular belief, the earth's supply of relatively pure Uranium ore is very limitted. When the grade of Uranium ore regresses to approximately 0.1% U3O8, the refinement and fabrication processes in the nuclear fuel cycle, will emit greenhouse equal to that of a coal plant. This will only get worse, as the grade of uranium ore regresses further.

After U-235 fuel is spent, it's covered in a water to cool it down. Considering that we use tonnes of the stuff to generate electricity, a whole heap of water would have to be produced to cover it. How wasteful is that?

Also, U-235 is the only fissile isotope of Uranium, but it only occurs at 0.7% in nature. What do you suggest we do with the other 99.3% of the other isotope, U-238? We dump it with the spent fuel, right? But U-238 has a half life of approximately 4.5 billion years. The sun's only going to last another 5 billion years at most. Even with the most stringent safety precautions in place, given the incomprehensible amount of time that the Uranium wastes are going to be radioactive, nuclear power and it's wastes should be feared.

As humans, we have a tendancy to rush into things that seem like a great idea at the time, but end up screwing with the whole environment. Nuclear power is just another one of those ideas. We cannot continue to do this to our environment. At some point, we will have to stop. Money and bandaid solutions cannot sustain life, but our earth can. Let's respect it.

 

[DarkSun]

How you drive has a low effect on your likelihood of being in an accident, (assuming reasonable driving habits). The actions of others dictate your chances. Do you have control over the other guy speeding through a red light? No. Do you have control over mudslides, over the grip on the other guys tire, his reaction time, your reaction time, the weather, visibility, and the list goes on. You have extremely low control over anything at all. Even if you do not accept this analogy, the chances of being in a plane crash are a few orders of magnitude higher than being in a nuclear accident. You have no control over your flight. If you are scared of nuclear power accidents, you are probably terrified over lots of other mundane things you do every day.

Planes are used far more than nuclear power stations. There are far more cars, than nuclear power stations for that matter. You'll have a greater sample space with car crashes and aeroplane crashes, than you will with nuclear reactor issues. Comparing the two is misleading. They're two completely different sets of statistics. You know it, too.

 

[yossarian22]

Planes are used far more than nuclear power stations. There are far more cars, than nuclear power stations for that matter. You'll have a greater sample space with car crashes and aeroplane crashes, than you will with nuclear reactor issues.

Entirely irrelevant. Nuclear use is widespread enough that the lower sample size does not matter. I used rates, if you didn't notice.

Comparing the two is misleading.

This is equivalent to saying you can't judge danger based on frequency.
I oversimplified, I will admit to that much, but the principle behind the formulas is the exact same. Your odds of being killed in a car crash are higher than being killed by a nuclear meltdown. Accident rates are uniform enough throughout cities and towns (nowhere near exactly equal, but they are almost always within an order of magnitude of each other) that discounting areas where being affected by a nuclear meltdown is not possible makes little difference to the overall spread, especially given how far apart the numbers are.
Hell, increase the sample size to encompass military accidents as well, and you still have points ridiculously far apart. Either drivers in an area with a nuclear power plant have ridiculously low accident rates (I'd venture to say a z score of around -35 ought to put it within spitting distance of the nuclear meltdown rate) and nobody noticed it, or this analogy works.

 

[DarkSun]

Entirely irrelevant. Nuclear use is widespread enough that the lower sample size does not matter. I used rates, if you didn't notice.

There were 438 nuclear power stations in the world during 2001.

Now, of the three hundred million people in America, and of the six and a half billion people world-wide, how many of them do you think own a car, and drive it?

Sample space does matter. If you have more data, then your rate is going to be more accurate. If you have less data, then your rate is going to be less accurate. I hope you understand that.

The same rule applies for planes.

If you still don't understand, think of it as flipping a coin. Theoretically, you'll get one head every two flips, right? It doesn't work that way, in reality.

You could get three heads for the four times you flip, or any other combination. The more times you flip the coin, the higher your sample space will be of heads, and your average result becomes more credible.

For all you know, if there were more nuclear power stations, the rate of meltdowns per year could change dramatically. Comparing the rate of nuclear power station issues, to other incidents, such as car accidents per day, or plane crashes per year, is utterly redundant. The sample spaces are different in size, and thus have differing accuracies.

 

[yossarian22]

There were 438 nuclear power stations in the world during 2001.

Now, of the three hundred million people in America, and of the six and a half billion people world-wide, how many of them do you think own a car, and drive it?

Sample space does matter. If you have more data, then your rate is going to be more accurate. If you have less data, then your rate is going to be less accurate. I hope you understand that.

We do not need such a large sample space to ball park it. Of course our confidence level will be low due to how widespread the data is (When plotting the mean of rates per year), but the wideness of the range does not matter given how far apart the chances are.

The same rule applies for planes.

Same counterpoint.
If you can demonstrate some possible overlap, then you have grounds for a disagreement, but they do not appreciably overlap (after a z score of 15 ( point-μ over[SIZE=-1]&#963, we consider the chance of the event to be zero)
[/SIZE]

For all you know, if there were more nuclear power stations, the rate of meltdowns per year could change dramatically. Comparing the rate of nuclear power station issues, to other incidents, such as car accidents per day, or plane crashes per year, is utterly redundant. The sample spaces are different in size, and thus have differing accuracies.

Eh, drastically increasing the number of reactors, all else held constant, any statistician of repute would assume the rate to be the exact same. 438 reactors (its more than that, because none of those reactors have undergone a meltdown, or tey would not exist) serves as a census now, but assuming thousands of the reactors are built, we would expect the rate to be roughly the same. 438 is a fairly hefy sample size.
Another thing, we can compare two things with enormously different accuracies. We do it all the time.
The law of large numbers is irrelevant.

 

[DarkSun]

This is beside the point. The likelyhood of a nuclear accident is irrelevant when it comes down to it. The effects of a plane crash or car crash are instantaneous, and relatively local. In comparison, if something went wrong with a nuclear reactor, then the after-effects would linger for hundreds of generations and would effect everyone in the vicinity.

Even if it is unlikely, is it not wise to fear such an event?

(Hey, I'd love it if you could get back to me on some of my earlier points. Thanks.)

 

[DarkSun]

438 reactors (its more than that, because none of those reactors have undergone a meltdown, or tey would not exist) serves as a census now, but assuming thousands of the reactors are built, we would expect the rate to be roughly the same. 438 is a fairly hefy sample size.

It wasn't actually more than that. According to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), there were 438 nuclear reactors as of 2001. Inclusive of this were the 150 reactors in Western Europe, and the 118 in North America.

Eh, drastically increasing the number of reactors, all else held constant, any statistician of repute would assume the rate to be the exact same.

Yes, in theory, that would be true. But like flipping a coin, in practice, it's not.

Another thing, we can compare two things with enormously different accuracies. We do it all the time.

Right... so the fact that we constantly do it, defines whether it's fallacious or not?