Why not nuclear power?

[zenzero]

friend panda,
Kindly read the article at the link given below, rgds bird deaths due to wind turbines.
Renewable Energy - Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green
More such papers are available on the net.
Love & rgds

 

[Panda]

friend panda,
Kindly read the article at the link given below, rgds bird deaths due to wind turbines.
Renewable Energy - Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green
More such papers are available on the net.
Love & rgds

They are killing thousands of birds worldwide. More people die than that every hour, this really isn't much a concern for such a small loss.

 

[zenzero]

Dear Panda,
Exactly what was meaning to state; that any action will also have a negative effect be it producing power by any way; but as life has to go on, humans will be finding suitable ways of handling it.
Death is nothing but only a medium for Change of form.
Love & rgds

 

[lilithu]

Why not nuclear power?

1. The radioactive waste lasts for generations.

2. Possibility of meltdown.

3. Makes an attractive target for terrorist attack.

4. Even if there is no meltdown, tritiated (radioactive) water is still released. The incidences of cancer are higher in communities down wind/stream of nuclear power plants. Can you believe that nuclear plants are self-monitoring??!

5. The govt standards of "safe" doses of radiation to which we all can be exposed is based on what would be ok for a 20-30 year old white male, 5' 7" tall and 154 lbs, with North American dietary habits. This is the case even tho it has been proven that women and especially children are more susceptible to radiation than adult men.

6. There isn't enough uranium. If the entire world used nuclear to generate 70% of its electricity starting tomorrow, the world's known uranium supplies would run out in 10 years.

7. There aren't enough nuclear power plants right now to generate 70% of our electricity. In order for nuclear to do that we would have to build six times the number of plants that we have now.

8. Building sufficient plants would take too much time and too much money.

9. Why would we be spending all that money on an energy source that is going to run out in ten years?

10. Nuclear power is NOT carbon neutral. Sure, the very last step is, but every step leading up to it - from the extraction of the uranium to the transport and processing - is dependent on fossil fuels. And as the world's supplies of uranium dwindle, more fossil fuels will be necessary in order to extract them.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Liluthu,
There is no doubt of what you state may be correct.
So be it.
But let us all understand as to how best we can live without power in this age?
Any method of producing power has certain negative aspect like today farmers are using crops to produce ethanol which has resulted in cost of food items to go high.
It is a question of balance. it is a question of getting our bodies to get used to nature or natural weather to start with.
Monks in Tibet go out at night to meditate under sub zero temperatures in the Himalayas. Proven fact, nothing happens. It is possible to bear all kinds of weather just by having control of our breathing. If we can learn natures ways, we have no problems as then we will have plenty to survve as our bodies require very little food for a healthy living, so on and so forth.
Solutions are required; problems will always be there at the other pole.
Be individually prepared for every situation is the best way; what is second best, is what everyone talks about.
Love & rgds

 

[Panda]

Why not nuclear power?

1. The radioactive waste lasts for generations.

I think more research should be done into transmutation to deal with the waste. This would seriously cut down on this problem.

2. Possibility of meltdown.

This is a tiny possibility and most people who talk about it are scaremongering. There have been a number of meltdowns over the years and only one has had any serious long term effects.

3. Makes an attractive target for terrorist attack.

Only because uninformed people think blowing up a nuclear power plate can cause a nuclear explosion.

4. Even if there is no meltdown, tritiated (radioactive) water is still released. The incidences of cancer are higher in communities down wind/stream of nuclear power plants. Can you believe that nuclear plants are self-monitoring??!

Tritium is produced at a yield of 0.01%. As long as it is safely monitored and exposure is kept below 10,000 Bq/L it is safe for human consumption. In most countrys however the legal limit is far lower in the range of 100-1000 Bq/L far below the WHO limit.

5. The govt standards of "safe" doses of radiation to which we all can be exposed is based on what would be ok for a 20-30 year old white male, 5' 7" tall and 154 lbs, with North American dietary habits. This is the case even tho it has been proven that women and especially children are more susceptible to radiation than adult men.

In the UK the government limit for people who work with radiation is 20mSv a year, for people who do not work with radiation it is significantly lower. Company's limits are normally far below the legal requirement.

6. There isn't enough uranium. If the entire world used nuclear to generate 70% of its electricity starting tomorrow, the world's known uranium supplies would run out in 10 years.

Uranium supply's are gauged at 80 years on our current consumption. Then there is the undiscovered ore that is estimated to be enough for another 300 years. At 2004 prices and consumption it is estimated there are 1500 years supply. If we include more unconventinal ores that should technically be possible we have enough supply for a millennia. The 80 year estimation is higher than that we have for most minerals.

7. There aren't enough nuclear power plants right now to generate 70% of our electricity. In order for nuclear to do that we would have to build six times the number of plants that we have now.

Yup we would but how is this an argument against nuclear power?

8. Building sufficient plants would take too much time and too much money.

Nuclear power is cheaper than renewable sources. I agree it would take a long time to make enough reactors. Currently it takes about 15 years to build one.

9. Why would we be spending all that money on an energy source that is going to run out in ten years?

See above.

10. Nuclear power is NOT carbon neutral. Sure, the very last step is, but every step leading up to it - from the extraction of the uranium to the transport and processing - is dependent on fossil fuels. And as the world's supplies of uranium dwindle, more fossil fuels will be necessary in order to extract them.

On this logic no form of energy is carbon neutral. Think of the mining that has to be done for metals and all the carbon that will produce. However it is less harmful than fossil fuel plants.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

There are several Mushrooms that can clean nuclear waste.

 

[methylatedghosts]

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?

All I know is that we here in New Zealand have stayed away from anything nuclear. We even refused entry to U.S. nuclear-powered sea vessels at one point. That's how much we don't like it.

A lot of our electricity comes from hydro, geothermal and wind. And we have plenty of access to expand those and others such as wave, tidal and even biogas.

 

[lilithu]

I think more research should be done into transmutation to deal with the waste. This would seriously cut down on this problem.

I keep hearing claims of this. To which my reaction is then do the research. Don't have us generate more radioactive waste on the assumption that we'll figure out a way how to deal with it later.

This is a tiny possibility and most people who talk about it are scaremongering. There have been a number of meltdowns over the years and only one has had any serious long term effects.

If we dramatically increased the number of reactors, which we would have to do, then the number of meltdowns will dramatically increase as well.

Only because uninformed people think blowing up a nuclear power plate can cause a nuclear explosion.

Whether or not the attackers are uninformed is not the issue.

Tritium is produced at a yield of 0.01%. As long as it is safely monitored and exposure is kept below 10,000 Bq/L it is safe for human consumption. In most countrys however the legal limit is far lower in the range of 100-1000 Bq/L far below the WHO limit.

Did you miss the part where I said that in the U.S. the nuclear plants are self-monitoring? They measure their own levels of tritium, and they decide when they are going to do it.

In the UK the government limit for people who work with radiation is 20mSv a year, for people who do not work with radiation it is significantly lower. Company's limits are normally far below the legal requirement.

Illinois Sues Exelon for Radioactive Tritium Releases Since 1996

Uranium supply's are gauged at 80 years on our current consumption.

Again, if we were to actually use nuclear for a significant portion of our energy needs, our consumption would be far greater than what is current. As for your estimates of "undiscovered ore," etc, they're just more promises.

Yup we would but how is this an argument against nuclear power?

Money.

Nuclear power is cheaper than renewable sources. I agree it would take a long time to make enough reactors. Currently it takes about 15 years to build one.

We don't have 15 years to wait.

See above.

Yeah, I repeat, why would we invest all that time and money in an energy source that is not sustainable?

On this logic no form of energy is carbon neutral. Think of the mining that has to be done for metals and all the carbon that will produce.

Really? I wasn't aware that we had to continually mine and enrich for sunshine or water or wind. Yes, we mine for metals, which is environmentally destructive for a host of reasons in addition to carbon gases. So why do even more mining for uranium?

 

[Panda]

I keep hearing claims of this. To which my reaction is then do the research. Don't have us generate more radioactive waste on the assumption that we'll figure out a way how to deal with it later.

I agree they should do the damn research.

If we dramatically increased the number of reactors, which we would have to do, then the number of meltdowns will dramatically increase as well.

I would bet more people die mining coal than from nuclear reactors.

Whether or not the attackers are uninformed is not the issue.

Well no it is because they are going to do the research first and will probably realise there are far easier and better targets.

Did you miss the part where I said that in the U.S. the nuclear plants are self-monitoring? They measure their own levels of tritium, and they decide when they are going to do it.

Well perhaps you government should rethink its polices?

Again, if we were to actually use nuclear for a significant portion of our energy needs, our consumption would be far greater than what is current. As for your estimates of "undiscovered ore," etc, they're just more promises.

No "undiscovered ore" is estimates based on scientific facts about the mineral composition of the Earth. You might also want to note that we have 80 years fuel currently and another 300 years that is in known mines and can be extracted. This is not a short term solution. Also I might like to add I do not think nuclear should be our sole power source, I think it should be divided between nuclear, renewable and fossil fuels. With fossil fuels being decreased and renewable and nuclear increased to fill the gap. It can more more economical and more practical in some places to build nuclear plants.

Money.

It is cheaper than trying to supply all the energy we need with renewable.

Yeah, I repeat, why would we invest all that time and money in an energy source that is not sustainable?

Well it is an investment in a sustainable energy source.

Really? I wasn't aware that we had to continually mine and enrich for sunshine or water or wind. Yes, we mine for metals, which is environmentally destructive for a host of reasons in addition to carbon gases. So why do even more mining for uranium?

I didn't claim it was greener than renewable I only said no energy sources have no carbon footprint but nuclear is better than fossil.

As a side note I would like to see more research done into fusion.

 

[Panda]

As a side note about the fusion you might want to read about ITER. T

 

[lilithu]

I would bet more people die mining coal than from nuclear reactors.

How is that relevant? I'm not advocating for coal. In fact, I would quite like to get rid of coal use.

Well perhaps you government should rethink its polices?

On this we agree.

No "undiscovered ore" is estimates based on scientific facts about the mineral composition of the Earth.

Yet other people estimate less than ten years based on the same scientific facts.

It is cheaper than trying to supply all the energy we need with renewable.

Cheaper for something that generates radioactive waste and will run out versus making a long term investment into something that's not inherently dangerous and and is truly renewable. Hmm... such a difficult decision. :sarcastic

Well it is an investment in a sustainable energy source.

Nope, not sustainable. We're arguing here over how long it will last. By definition that means it's not sustainable.

I didn't claim it was greener than renewable I only said no energy sources have no carbon footprint but nuclear is better than fossil.

And by your own admission, renewables are better than nuclear.

 

[Panda]

How is that relevant? I'm not advocating for coal. In fact, I would quite like to get rid of coal use.

You were saying it was unsafe. That is a common myth.

On this we agree.

Thats good

Yet other people estimate less than ten years based on the same scientific facts.

No they are only taking into account our reserves. Not any undiscovered ore or known ore that hasn't been mined. Uranium is as common as tin.

Cheaper for something that generates radioactive waste and will run out versus making a long term investment into something that's not inherently dangerous and and is truly renewable. Hmm... such a difficult decision. :sarcastic

If more work is done into transmutation then this might no longer be a problem. It is a long term investment.

Nope, not sustainable. We're arguing here over how long it will last. By definition that means it's not sustainable.

I think if we are saying it will last 300 years that is sustainable.

And by your own admission, renewables are better than nuclear.

No it is cleaner, not better. Nuclear is 1000 times more powerful than coal. Renewable takes up far to much space to be viable in many places. One nuclear power plant can produce so much more power than renewable and be cheaper.

 

[lilithu]

You were saying it was unsafe. That is a common myth.

Yeah, you keep calling it that. I think most people know what radiation does. As for the rest, same as the above, we are going in circles.

Don't know why you keep comparing to coal when I am not advocating coal. That's called a straw man. I'm advocating renewables. They are safer, greener, and truly sustainable.

 

[wednesday]

Yeah, you keep calling it that. I think most people know what radiation does. As for the rest, same as the above, we are going in circles.

Don't know why you keep comparing to coal when I am not advocating coal. That's called a straw man. I'm advocating renewables. They are safer, greener, and truly sustainable.

Nuclear is not the best, but the best current alternative to coal that is economically viable.
If anyone has seen the kids show the teletubbies, look at all the wind turbines there (Levin, New Zealand). There are also tidal currents that can be harnessed off the southern cape of Afriaca, Australia and the east coast of New Zealand. Governments are just too involved with olil companies to do the reasearch sadly.

 

[lilithu]

Nuclear is not the best, but the best current alternative to coal that is economically viable.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

I'd rather we spend the extra money to do it right, instead of saving a little money now but having to clean up the mess later, which will ultimately cost even more.

 

[Panda]

Yeah, you keep calling it that. I think most people know what radiation does. As for the rest, same as the above, we are going in circles.

Don't know why you keep comparing to coal when I am not advocating coal. That's called a straw man. I'm advocating renewables. They are safer, greener, and truly sustainable.

I think the fact is most people DON'T understand what radiation does. It is normally harmless. If it wasn't we would all be dead. I do agree we are not going anywhere, lets just agree to disagree.

 

[3.14]

the biggest problem with neuclear power is terrorists, chernobyle almost killed of the entire planet with its radioactive cloud, now think of wat a dozen terrorists can do all infiltrating 1 powerplant, it could create enough radioactive debry in the air to make us all sterile. and there are more then 12 terrorists in the world you do the math.

 

[Panda]

Penny wise, pound foolish.

I'd rather we spend the extra money to do it right, instead of saving a little money now but having to clean up the mess later, which will ultimately cost even more.

But both types will outlive reactors or renewable sources that are built today. Neither is wasted money as they would both last until they need to be replaced.

 

[Panda]

the biggest problem with neuclear power is terrorists, chernobyle almost killed of the entire planet with its radioactive cloud, now think of wat a dozen terrorists can do all infiltrating 1 powerplant, it could create enough radioactive debry in the air to make us all sterile. and there are more then 12 terrorists in the world you do the math.

Chernobyl killed 56 people directly, and then another estimated 9000 due to radiation causing things like cancer.