LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
Very interesting documentary on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/the-nuclear-option.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/the-nuclear-option.html
Thanks!LTLFTcomposite said:Very interesting documentary on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/the-nuclear-option.html
The graph in the article you linked to (which shows that the cost per unit generating capacity of nuclear has been increasing over the last 4 decades) does not appear to be corrected for inflation. As such, it is pretty useless for drawing conclusions.Stoaty said:nuclear has a "negative learning curve"
Stoaty said:The problem with nuclear (besides reactor accidents and long term waste storage) is that nuclear has a "negative learning curve" and is pricing itself out of the market:
https://thinkprogress.org/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power-44b486ed8a72#.a01gxhrf4
Yes, but due to methane leakage natural gas is probably not much of an improvement over coal from a climate standpoint (but much better re: mercury, coal ash dumps, etc.).WetEV said:The article misses the important falling cost, that of natural gas. Most of the recent reduction in coal usage and thus carbon emissions is due to natural gas displacing coal.
Ok so even if we take for granted that there are 3 places on Earth that humans cannot live (which isn't true there is a way to clean it up and we have the technology to do so), that's still a far better track record than any fossil fuel has had. Let's add up the acreage destroyed by nuclear power and that destroyed by fossil fuels, I'm waiting. Renewables are great but a) you need lots of power to build enough of them to replace any other power method and b) nuclear can scale up to meet demand TODAY, safely.RegGuheert said:The problem with these three accidents in which the reactor cores have melted down is that we have no way to clean them up. We do not have the technology to go into the core area and remove the mess.
Not true at all. Nuclear "waste" in America is actually 93% usable fuel, it just needs to be refined once it's used the first time. In the US this is banned because of outdated anti-nuclear-proliferation laws. In Europe and elsewhere 93% the material that we bury underground in America, they run back through the reactor, leaving only 7% waste needing to be buried. Compared to coal ash, which is kept indefinitely in open-air ponds all accross America, the amount of nuclear waste in volume would be something like .1% of the coal ash slurry we already are storing. I think we can handle it.Even if no more of them melt down, the problem of what to do with the waste only grows with time.
By using depleted uranium as fuel, the new reactor type could reduce stockpiles from uranium enrichment. TerraPower notes that the US hosts 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium and that 8 metric tons could power 2.5 million homes for a year. Some reports claim that the high fuel efficiency of TWRs, combined with the ability to use uranium recovered from river or sea water, means enough fuel is available to generate electricity for 10 billion people at US per capita consumption levels for million-year time-scales.
I'm interested. Care to share it with us? I'm wondering why it has not been employed at any of these three sites.VitaminJ said:(which isn't true there is a way to clean it up and we have the technology to do so)
I'm not a fan of burning fossil fuels, particularly coal. But that doesn't change the fact nuclear has done significant damage to people and the planet. Let's not lose sight of that fact.VitaminJ said:Let's add up the acreage destroyed by nuclear power and that destroyed by fossil fuels, I'm waiting.
No argument that renewables have a very long way to go and that it takes significant energy to build them. But it is happening and it will continue to improve with time. We have a LOT of roofs yet to be covered in this country.VitaminJ said:Renewables are great but a) you need lots of power to build enough of them to replace any other power method and b) nuclear can scale up to meet demand TODAY, safely.
Read what I wrote that you quoted. It sounds as if the problem is growing just as I said.VitaminJ said:Not true at all. Nuclear "waste" in America is actually 93% usable fuel, it just needs to be refined once it's used the first time. In the US this is banned because of outdated anti-nuclear-proliferation laws.RegGuheert said:Even if no more of them melt down, the problem of what to do with the waste only grows with time.
Nuclear waste is a bit more dangerous than coal slurry, methinks.VitaminJ said:In Europe and elsewhere 93% the material that we bury underground in America, they run back through the reactor, leaving only 7% waste needing to be buried. Compared to coal ash, which is kept indefinitely in open-air ponds all accross America, the amount of nuclear waste in volume would be something like .1% of the coal ash slurry we already are storing. I think we can handle it.
Interesting fact. As I said, I'm not a fan of coal.VitaminJ said:To give you a better sense of scale about how amazing nuclear energy is; imagine an American coal train. You know, the huge ones that are 1/4 to 1/2 mile or longer. Each one of those trains' entire load of coal will be burnt in one day, at one power plant. Coal naturally contains .03% Uranium, that same train-load of coal has enough Uranium to power a nuclear power plant, with the same energy output, for over 1 year.
1 day vs. 1 year.
VitaminJ said:To give you a better sense of scale about how amazing nuclear energy is; imagine an American coal train. You know, the huge ones that are 1/4 to 1/2 mile or longer. Each one of those trains' entire load of coal will be burnt in one day, at one power plant. Coal naturally contains .03% Uranium, that same train-load of coal has enough Uranium to power a nuclear power plant, with the same energy output, for over 1 year.
Well firstly we have detection technology that can locate the most minute traces of radioactivity, if we can find it we can remove it. The #1 way to clean a nuclear accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima is simply wash the buildings and streets down with water, collect the water dispose of it either in man made holes or dump it in the ocean. Salt water is excellent at blocking radiation and dissipation will reduce levels to normal background within days. The #2 most important thing is tractors and dump trucks, remove the top inch or two of soil and dispose of it as well. These things were done around the vicinity of the reactor at Chernobyl and now you can walk right up to the reactor building, and even go inside if you want, all without receiving more radiation that you might on a long international plane flight. The vast expanse of wilderness around the site was not cleaned simply due to the cost and manpower required.RegGuheert said:I'm interested. Care to share it with us? I'm wondering why it has not been employed at any of these three sites
I'm not a fan of burning fossil fuels, particularly coal. But that doesn't change the fact nuclear has done significant damage to people and the planet. Let's not lose sight of that fact.
If nuclear is going to change from where it is today to thorium breeders or whatever, then the work needs to be done to start transitioning and demonstrating. Thor Energy has a credible transition plan. It's one thing to say it is safe. It is another thing to do it in a manner which IS safe. Rushing to build a bunch of new-generation nuclear reactors is NOT it. We need to be deliberate about anything done with nuclear power to avoid the unfortunate mistakes of the past.
No argument that renewables have a very long way to go and that it takes significant energy to build them. But it is happening and it will continue to improve with time. We have a LOT of roofs yet to be covered in this country.
It's a political problem, not a physical problem. The reason I keep bringing up US laws is because they are the way they are because nuclear energy has been double-teamed for the past 30 years by both environmentalists and the fossil fuel industry. Environmentalists because they are ignorant and fossil fuel industry because of $$$. Even now, you are spreading the same-old same-old propaganda lines they invented 30 years ago! Meanwhile in Texas a random refinery is about to explode...Read what I wrote that you quoted. It sounds as if the problem is growing just as I said.
Actually, your thinks are wrong!Nuclear waste is a bit more dangerous than coal slurry, methinks.
Interesting fact. As I said, I'm not a fan of coal.
It's just math, no source required. I did the calculations a long time ago. The amount of uranium in coal varies by location but in America it's about .03% average. From there it's just mass vs energy calculations.philip said:That's interesting, do you have a source for that we could check out?
VitaminJ said:It's just math, no source required. I did the calculations a long time ago. The amount of uranium in coal varies by location but in America it's about .03% average. From there it's just mass vs energy calculations.
finman100 said:and apparently hurricanes ONLY blow away solar panels and do nothing to other systems, huh. did not know that. just laughable. oh, those unsightly solar roofs uglifying the cooling tower/power plant skyline(s). please continue with the lesson...
philip said:Okay, did some looking up, US coal contains 1 to 4 ppm of uranium.
Much of that "wilderness" you speak of was cities, towns and farmland prior to the accident in 1986. 400,000 people had to be relocated for that polluted wilderness to be created. The 1000 square mile exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear reactor stands as a testament that these disaster areas cannot be cleaned. Instead, scientists go into the area to study the effects of the radioactive pollution on the wildlife there.VitaminJ said:These things were done around the vicinity of the reactor at Chernobyl and now you can walk right up to the reactor building, and even go inside if you want, all without receiving more radiation that you might on a long international plane flight. The vast expanse of wilderness around the site was not cleaned simply due to the cost and manpower required.
I suspect that you are correct that many of the areas that were evacuated could be safely repopulated. But I will not that much of that area was destroyed by the tsunami. The video in the OP of this thread indicates that the officials are still struggling to find a solution to the problem of water which is collecting radioactive pollution from the reactor. They are simply storing it in tanks today.VitaminJ said:Fukushima was not cleaned whatsoever and the contamination zone was simply abandoned out of pure hysteria and ignorance.
Thanks. I was unaware.VitaminJ said:Three-mile-island has had all of it's radioactive material removed.
Nonsense. This is the same lunacy which is causing I'll-advised "renewable" projects to be build that cause more damage to the environment than the incumbent alternatives. The rush to build out nuclear power quickly is part of what lead to the three major disasters discussed above.VitaminJ said:Unfortunately too slowly, we need clean energy right now not in 50 years.
VitaminJ said:I think all new houses and industrial building should be built with solar roofs, also.
So are you saying these new plants are not safe?VitaminJ said:Nobody is rushing to build anything. Safe designs exist and are being built all over the world already, just not in the US. In the US we have laws blocking construction of new plants, the newest designs being built today were designed in the 70s.
Here is an extensive list of military nuclear accidents. Denying that they occurred does not move the discussion forward. Minimizing them doesn't either.VitaminJ said:The US Navy operates about 100 nuclear reactors all over the planet in operational conditions in the fricken ocean without a single accident.
Here's a complete(?) list of accidents at power plants by country[/quote]. There are WAY more than three accidents listed there.VitaminJ said:There have only been 3 nuclear power accidents in all of history, 1 of them was purely Soviet idiocy and incompetence, 1 of them was contained within the structures and safety procedures all worked and the media blew it out of proportions, and 1 involved a power plant built in 1979, 7 years before Chernobyl was built, being hit by one of the strongest earthquakes in decades and only failed because it was swamped with a tsunami that was thought not possible within the lifetime of the plant.
“It is with much reluctance and regret that I now must recognize that the U.S. profession of health physics has become essentially a labor union for the nuclear industry—not a profession of scientists dedicated to protect the worker and members of the public from radiation injury,” Dr. Morgan wrote in 1992.
The nuclear industry's political problem is entirely of their own making. They cannot change public opinion using words because of the long history of lies that they have told. If the nuclear industry wants a reputation of being a safe form of power, they will need to earn it.VitaminJ said:It's a political problem, not a physical problem. The reason I keep bringing up US laws is because they are the way they are because nuclear energy has been double-teamed for the past 30 years by both environmentalists and the fossil fuel industry. Environmentalists because they are ignorant and fossil fuel industry because of $$$. Even now, you are spreading the same-old same-old propaganda lines they invented 30 years ago! Meanwhile in Texas a random refinery is about to explode...
Thanks for the article. Coal is also stored outdoors. The article says that coal ash has radioactive materials at a concentration "up to ten times" that of the coal before it was burned. That doesn't sound like a huge problem to me.VitaminJ said:Actually, your thinks are wrong!Nuclear waste is a bit more dangerous than coal slurry, methinks.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
We store this stuff outdoors in the open!
Enter your email address to join: