[gazbarber]

As the thread title says "Whats the problem with nuclear power?", there seems to be plenty of people especially those in the green party that don't like it, from my point of view it seems to be more down to 'religious' reasons than fact, does anyone have strong feelings either way here.

Further can someone give a credible reason why we shouldn't be either going strongly nuclear or at least keep it as a vital part of the energy mix?

[mjcairney]

The main perceived problem with nuclear power, as far as I know, is what to do with the spent fuel at the end of a station's working life, as it stays radioactive for, I believe, thousands of years.

Having said that, I personally think, as I believe so too do you, that at least some of our power should be generated this way. They are talking about 20% of our power requirements coming from wind turbines but, my question is, what do we do on a freezing cold day in the middle of winter when there is no wind blowing, where does our power come from then?

Cheers,

Martin.

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

As the thread title says "Whats the problem with nuclear power?",

Would you live near a nuclear power station?

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

Would you live near a nuclear power station?

Yes, statisticaly the safest form of power generation, would you travel by aeroplane?

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Yes, statisticaly the safest form of power generation, would you travel by aeroplane?

Yes areoplane, no nuclear

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

Yes areoplane, no nuclear

Can I ask why, just general fear or is there a rational reason?

Would you rather live near Coal/Gas power staitions, what about geothermal or a huge Dam that generates electricity?

I think most if they had and option would live as far away from land fills, quarries, mines, (waste) incinerators, recycling plants and numerous other essential requirements to modern society. Of all of those I think I'd rather live near and in all honestly, a nuclear power plant.

[mjcairney]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

Would you live near a nuclear power station?

Not any more than I would want to live beside a Coal Fired Power Station, an Oil Fired Power Station or a Wind Farm for that matter. But, that's not really the point, as they can be built away from towns, villages, etc. Look at France, they have built a lot of nuclear power stations and have no fear of power cuts in the coming years - the same cannot be said of the UK.

Cheers,

Martin.

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Can I ask why, just general fear or is there a rational reason?

It's probably what most people think, a lot of fear

Chernobyl did not help

[DPinBucks]

Barring sudden and unforeseeable breakthroughs in other forms of energy (only fusion fits that bill, though), in the medium-to-long term there is simply no alternative to fission nuclear power.

Even global warming apart, there is no chance that (a) renewables will be able to meet the growth needs; and (b) the oil will last for much longer. The only long-term viable energy source is electricity, and the only long-term viable source of electricity is nuclear.


We need fossil and/or bio-hydrocarbons for two purposes for which electricity itself is not suitable:

• Aviation, although electrically-sourced hydrogen might prove workable;
• Chemicals, especially plastics, and pharmaceuticals

It is criminally wasteful to burn hydrocarbons for heat energy when they should be preserved for these two purposes. Even Jonathan Porritt, the environmental campaigner, has said this.

[Wild Weasel]

We have hundreds of years of coal reserves we can always use.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

We have hundreds of years of coal reserves we can always use.

Noted but not really on topic, at best this is not a problem with nuclear but an alternative that sits higher or lower than nuclear preferntialy depending on your point of view.

[BISHI]

Coal is by far the dirtiest way to generate electricity, it is unfortunately also the cheapest. This is why China are building an unprecedented number of coal and anthracite fuelled power stations. This is a national ,and in all probability global, environmental disaster waiting to happen. China appears to have little concern for the environment in its race to overtake the USA as the no 1 economy. The only realistic alternative for the UK is nuclear power stations. Modern reactor designs are much safer than previous ones but are quite expensive to build and maintain. We should do like the French and produce so much nuclear electricity we can export it beyond our borders.

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by BISHI

We should do like the French and produce so much nuclear electricity we can export it beyond our borders.

What about all the waste

Do we dump this on third world countries

[andy1249]

As the thread title says "Whats the problem with nuclear power?", there seems to be plenty of people especially those in the green party that don't like it, from my point of view it seems to be more down to 'religious' reasons than fact, does anyone have strong feelings either way here.

Religious reasons ? Baffled by that , what have people been saying ?

No , the number one perceived issue is Chernobyl , and the horrific aftermaths .... Be warned , these pictures are disturbing ....

nuclear NIGHTMARES

Regardless of how unlikely it is to happen here , which is the favourite rational defence , the fact is it happened , and your ordinary punter doesnt know how Nuclear power stations work or how safe they are , they just know that it happened in Chernobyl , so no one wants to be near one.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

What about all the waste

Do we dump this on third world countries

I know this is america not the UK but its the same industry, and they don't recycle their waste as much as say France.

"All the spent nuclear fuel from power plants and other sources since the beginning of nuclear power in the US 50 years ago is so small in volume that it could all fit in a single CostCo stacked to a depth of 9 feet. All the spent fuel generated in the annual operation of a single power plant reactor would fit in the bed of a standard pickup truck."

and

"If an American got all his or her lifetime electricity solely from nuclear power, that person’s total share of the waste would fit into one soda can. Of that, only a trace is long-lived. In France, where nuclear fuel is recycled, waste is drastically reduced, so that the lifetime total for a family of four would fit in a single coffee cup."

compared with

"Half of our electricity comes from burning coal. If an American got all his or her electricity from coal over a lifespan of 77 years, that person’s mountain of solid waste would weigh 68.5 tons and would and would fit into six 12-ton railroad cars. That person’s share of carbon dioxide from coal emissions would come to 77 tons."

From:
Cravens - What about nuclear waste?

[gazbarber]

Chernobyl was terrible but that was a unique/old design and if you read through the incident at Chernobyl e.g. The Truth About Chernobyl: Amazon.co.uk: Andrei D. Sakharov, Grigorii Medvedev: Books you'll understand that it is just not possible to happen with modern designs, safeties wouldn't be compromised and systems would make it impossible to override the safeties as where done in Soviet Russia, the cause was as much political as technical.

I likened it to air flight above for 2 reasons, one its the safest form of travel but if an accident does happen its pretty catastrophic, but people fly by plane all the time.

The second reason is during the early days of passenger flight there was a plane called the Comet Comet , those early passenger planes have design problems that have since been dealt with, square windows instead of round ones made the plane implode.

This doesn't happen today as the design issue has been dealt with.
Would this ancient incident dissuade you from travelling by aeroplane, if not why should a similar design issue affect the use of nuclear power (I think they are comparable)?

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

I know this is america not the UK but its the same industry, and they don't recycle their waste as much as say France.

"All the spent nuclear fuel from power plants and other sources since the beginning of nuclear power in the US 50 years ago is so small in volume that it could all fit in a single CostCo stacked to a depth of 9 feet. All the spent fuel generated in the annual operation of a single power plant reactor would fit in the bed of a standard pickup truck."

and

"If an American got all his or her lifetime electricity solely from nuclear power, that person’s total share of the waste would fit into one soda can. Of that, only a trace is long-lived. In France, where nuclear fuel is recycled, waste is drastically reduced, so that the lifetime total for a family of four would fit in a single coffee cup."

compared with

"Half of our electricity comes from burning coal. If an American got all his or her electricity from coal over a lifespan of 77 years, that person’s mountain of solid waste would weigh 68.5 tons and would and would fit into six 12-ton railroad cars. That person’s share of carbon dioxide from coal emissions would come to 77 tons."

From:
Cravens - What about nuclear waste?

Just becuase qauntity of waste produced is small is irrelevant, the fact remains it's it hightly toxic and disposing of it still remains a problem given it takes thousands of years to decompose.

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by andy1249

Religious reasons ? Baffled by that , what have people been saying ?

No , the number one perceived issue is Chernobyl , and the horrific aftermaths .... Be warned , these pictures are disturbing ....

nuclear NIGHTMARES

Regardless of how unlikely it is to happen here , which is the favourite rational defence , the fact is it happened , and your ordinary punter doesnt know how Nuclear power stations work or how safe they are , they just know that it happened in Chernobyl , so no one wants to be near one.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that nuclear power is so dangerous that we must not use it? If so, what alternatives do you recommend, and how would they cope with projected growth to say 2100? What other global technologies have proven to be safer than nuclear? Should we also ban those which are less safe?

If you're not saying that, then I apologise, but I'm afraid that wasn't clear.

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

Just becuase qauntity of waste produced is small is irrelevant, the fact remains it's it hightly toxic and disposing of it still remains a problem given it takes thousands of years to decompose.

So what is your recommended approach:

• Make sure it's stored safely?
• Don't use nuclear because, even though millions will die without it, it's too frightening?

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

So what is your recommended approach:

• Make sure it's stored safely?
• Don't use nuclear because, even though millions will die without it, it's too frightening?

Millions die bit of an exagerration

Certainly not some of the suggestions of building stations so we can generate and export electricty

[andy1249]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The point is that this , like it or not , is the general perception of what can happen with a nuclear power plant.
To deal with that perception , you have to explain why it couldnt happen here , and this will take some doing? Large for profit organisations are generally not trusted by the general public.
People make mistakes , that is now and always will be the case , theres no such thing as an accident free site , people know this , so how do you convince them ?

This doesn't happen today as the design issue has been dealt with.
Would this ancient incident dissuade you from travelling by aeroplane, if not why should a similar design issue affect the use of nuclear power (I think they are comparable)?

If a plane goes down , does it render the crash site unusable for centuries ? Will there be birth deformities and cancer rate rises around the crash site , will it make people want to be as far away from the crash site as possible ?

The problem or perceived problem , is that "if" it goes wrong , the consequences are not a one time disaster , its a poisoning of the area for a very very long time.

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by andy1249

If a plane goes down , does it render the crash site unusable for centuries ? Will there be birth deformities and cancer rate rises around the crash site , will it make people want to be as far away from the crash site as possible ?

.

From a statistical point of view that is one thing statistics fail to take into account

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by andy1249

The problem or perceived problem , is that "if" it goes wrong , the consequences are not a one time disaster , its a poisoning of the area for a very very long time.

The issue is that the perception doesn't actual fit with the reality, nuclear is the safest form of power generation, that is a fact.
Its very unfortunate that one incident by a very irresponsible despotic government is tarring the one source of power generation that is mainly clean (no one seems to care about the uncontrolled pollution of extremely toxic and dangerous gases that coal power plants give out, but controlled nuclear waste that’s bad ), provides tremendous amounts of power and over time there is a potential to recycle existing waste back into generate power for future generations.

I understand your position altohugh it seems like your playing more devils advocate, its good someone is answering the question of the OP.

[Wild Weasel]

A mix of coal and nuclear is the only sensible long term option. Wind farms are utterly useless.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

Just becuase qauntity of waste produced is small is irrelevant, the fact remains it's it hightly toxic and disposing of it still remains a problem given it takes thousands of years to decompose.

You are surrounded by radioactivity taking millions of years to decompose, your microwave and mobile phone emit microwaves that are more damaging !!
It makes more sense to dump radioactive waste deep in the earth in old coal mines than to dig out more coal and poison the atmosphere any more..

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by andy1249

The point is that this , like it or not , is the general perception of what can happen with a nuclear power plant.
To deal with that perception , you have to explain why it couldnt happen here , and this will take some doing? Large for profit organisations are generally not trusted by the general public.
People make mistakes , that is now and always will be the case , theres no such thing as an accident free site , people know this , so how do you convince them ? ...

Yes, I'm sorry, I did misunderstand your point. You are dead right about the perception, but to deal with it, you can't "explain why it couldn't happen here", because it could.

You have to convince people that it's a necessary development, and that everything possible is being done to mitigate the risks. Couple this with a campaign to show the statistics as objectively as possible. Properly presented, they will speak for themselves.

If necessary, governments have to grasp the nettle and force it in over public misgiving, as the French have done, possibly under public ownership. I think we are helped by the fact that, although those misgivings are very real, the majority of people are in fact in favour of, or at least neutral towards, nuclear power. There are fewer 'anti's living in the vicinity of existing nuclear power stations in proportion to the rest of the population, largely because they see the local economic benefits.

Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of difficulty reconciling that with my idea of democracy. Although it won't be the first government initiative that's been forced in against public opionion in this way, it may well be the one with the benefits and potential hazards the furthest apart.

The message to hammer home always is "There is no choice".

[johntheexpat]

So, for those worried about nuclear waste from nuclear reactors, what about nuclear waste from coal fired power stations?

the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

and...

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

Both quotes from this article in Scientific American

(Best to read the whole article as I cherry picked two passages to make the point.)

And then from this article (which is quite evangelical in its support of nuclear power, but raises some interesting points) (but seems to be a blog by any other name)

But nobody worries much about the radioactivity of coal ash because the chemicals in it are far more dangerous. They include several thousand tons per year of mercury and other heavy metals, along with huge amounts of lead, arsenic, and asbestos, for example. Yet even the huge quantities of chemical waste in coal ash are of little concern compared to the gaseous emissions from burning coal, which kill an estimated 10,000 to 50,000 Americans every year, depending on which study you believe. As a point of reference, even the lower estimate approaches the rate at which Americans died in the Viet Nam war, and the higher estimate greatly exceeds it, yet the media rarely report on those deaths.

So let's get this straight. For a given amount of energy produced, coal waste has more radioactive matter than nuclear waste, yet the radioactivity of coal waste is nowhere near as dangerous as the solid chemical waste, which in turn is nowhere near as dangerous as the gaseous emissions. Are you starting to get the picture yet?

So, all in all, I'm not going to worry about nuclear waste and or reprocessing, any more than I worry about toxic emissions from coal fired power stations.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

So, all in all, I'm not going to worry about nuclear waste and or reprocessing, any more than I worry about toxic emissions from coal fired power stations.

Destroy a train carrying coal and you get a sooty mess.

Take out a couple of nuclear flasks on the next train on their way to Sellafield and you've got a disaster.

There are over 1000 nuclear train journeys each year.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by andy1249

If a plane goes down , does it render the crash site unusable for centuries ? Will there be birth deformities and cancer rate rises around the crash site , will it make people want to be as far away from the crash site as possible ?

Sorry forgot to reply to the above

...
She refutes the major arguments against nuclear power one by one, making clear, for example, that a stroll through Grand Central Terminal exposes a person to more radiation than a walk of equal length through a uranium mine; that average background radiation around Chernobyl and in Hiroshima is lower than in Denver; that there are no “cancer clusters” near nuclear facilities
...

from Cravens - Home different part of the site I linked above.

How long it took to dissipate the radiation I don't know, but 1000's of years it isn't.

Is there any evidence of deformed babies beyond statistical norms? i.e unlike in Vietnam were agent orange is quite clearly responsible for an increase in deformed new borns.

I do agree that the issue is more perception than reality, the more you look at it the more nuclear is the best option.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by GasDad

Destroy a train carrying coal and you get a sooty mess.

Take out a couple of nuclear flasks on the next train on their way to Sellafield and you've got a disaster.

There are over 1000 nuclear train journeys each year.

Pound to a penny you knew I would reply with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtRZ...eature=related


So, personally, no problem with rail transport (or road as the waste will be in the same containers)