• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Environmentalist whacko's......

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You could ask the same question about what to do with all the leftover ash from coal plants. It contians high levels of harmful chemicals and such, and currently jsut sits in huge ash ponds around the coal plants. Also, it should be noted that the other harmfull byproducts of coal plants (NOx, SOx, mercury, CO2, and more radiation than nuclear platns produce) are simply vented out to the open air. Also, the volume of high level nuclear waste prduced is TINY, there would be absolutely no problem form an engineering standpoint to secure it underground where it could never leak out. Again, politics interferes since the enviromentalsits say that the engineers can't PROVE that it won't leak out in less than 10,000 years. I'm sorry, but first off you can't PROVE anything will or wont happen in teh future, and secondly, if people are even still around 10,000 years from now I cannot image that they would not have found a way to neutralize the toxic waste

EDIT: and tbh, dumping it in the ocean wouldn't really even be such a horrible idea, the radiation couldn't penetrate the water, and uranium sure as heck ain't gonna flaot up the the surface on its own accord. If you dumped nuclear waste in an ocean trench I doubt it would ever move an inch even in a million years.
 
i'm a big fan of nuclear power

as for the nuclear waste, the nuclear waste problem is mainly due to improper/illegal dumping of waste from x-rays and things like that. not as much from nuclear power plants.

also, dumping in yucca mountain seems to get a lot of panties in a knot for some reason, but if you read more about it and the process by which the material is contained, i don't think people would have much of a problem with it... considering that earth will no longer exist by the time there's even a chance for a leak or break from the container. not only that, but the chances of there being any kind of volcanic activity at yucca mountain is 0%.

the people who claim getting cancer and other diseases because they live near a nuclear power plant is ridiculous... it's impossible, unless the plant was in meltdown or something.

anyways, my mom works for the nuclear regulatory commission... she's the senior project manager for three nuclear power plants and is usually involved in top secret meetings with high ranking members of the government (pres, vp, sec of energy, legislators, etc.).

 
Originally posted by: eits
i'm a big fan of nuclear power

as for the nuclear waste, the nuclear waste problem is mainly due to improper/illegal dumping of waste from x-rays and things like that. not as much from nuclear power plants.

also, dumping in yucca mountain seems to get a lot of panties in a knot for some reason, but if you read more about it and the process by which the material is contained, i don't think people would have much of a problem with it... considering that earth will no longer exist by the time there's even a chance for a leak or break from the container. not only that, but the chances of there being any kind of volcanic activity at yucca mountain is 0%.

the people who claim getting cancer and other diseases because they live near a nuclear power plant is ridiculous... it's impossible, unless the plant was in meltdown or something.

anyways, my mom works for the nuclear regulatory commission... she's the senior project manager for three nuclear power plants and is usually involved in top secret meetings with high ranking members of the government (pres, vp, sec of energy, legislators, etc.).
Click to expand...


We should launch our nuclear waste into space... 1 way ticket to the sun or sumthing.
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im actually working on a project right now for economics related to nuclear power.

Some info straight form the IAEA.

Energy Density
One kilogram (kg) of firewood can generate 1 kilowatt-hour (kW?h) of electricity. The values for the other solid fossil fuels and for nuclear power are:
1 kg coal: 3 kW?h
1 kg oil: 4 kW?h
1 kg uranium: 50 000 kW?h (3 500 000 kW?h with reprocessing)

Fuel required per year

Consequently, a 1000 MW plant requires the following number of tons (t) of fuel annually: (t = metric tons, 1000Kg)
2 600 000 t coal: 2000 train cars (1300t each)
2 000 000 t oil: 10 supertankers
30 t uranium: 10 cubic meters
428Kg uranium: 0.143 cubic meters or 143 liters (with reprocessing)
Click to expand...

Now analyze the total fuel cycle inputs and outputs for each source. Using the 428Kg number for uranium uses the same logic as the media likes to use for hydrogen as a fuel, ignoring the inputs needs to produce the hydrogen. Uranium does stack up well next to coal and oil and should be considered probably more than it is but the above numbers don't tell the story in a meaningful way.
 
Originally posted by: Captante
Further, 3-mile island was a relatively modern & efficient nuclear power plant that came VERY close to causing a disaster which would have made Chernobyl look like a walk in the park in terms of the number of people sickened or killed by the radiation, so calling nuclear fission "safe" isn't exactly accurate either.
Click to expand...

This is debatable. Though I make no claims as to what the truth is, some sources such as The Nuclear Energy Option by Professor Emeritus Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh (1990) make very convincing arguments for nuclear power, including downplaying (perhaps rightly so) the seriousness of the Three Mile Island incident:

The Nuclear Energy Option, chapter 6
One of the principal reasons for the discrepancy between the public's impressions and the technical analyses is that nuclear reactors are sealed inside a very powerfully built structure called the "containment." Under ordinary circumstances the containment would prevent the escape of radioactivity even if the reactor fuel were to melt completely and escape from the reactor vessel.

In the Three Mile Island accident, there was no threat to the containment. The investigations have therefore concluded that even if there had been a complete meltdown and the molten fuel had escaped from the reactor, the containment would very probably have prevented the escape of any large amount of radioactivity.1,2 In other words, even if the Three Mile Island accident was a "near miss" to a complete meltdown (a highly debatable point), it was definitely not a near miss to a health disaster.

The Chernobyl reactor did not have a containment anything like those used in U.S. reactors. Analyses have shown, that if it had used one, virtually no radioactivity would have escaped, there would have been no threat to human health, and the world would probably have never heard about it.
Click to expand...

I'm more or less an environmentalist, but I've been more than convinced through researching the issue that nuclear is not only environmentally nuetral, but environmentally friendly and a good choice for improving the overall energy situation. I see the best possible future including a rich combination of nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and to a lesser extent, renewable/clean energy sources such as hydro, wind, and solar.
 
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im actually working on a project right now for economics related to nuclear power.

Some info straight form the IAEA.

Energy Density
One kilogram (kg) of firewood can generate 1 kilowatt-hour (kW?h) of electricity. The values for the other solid fossil fuels and for nuclear power are:
1 kg coal: 3 kW?h
1 kg oil: 4 kW?h
1 kg uranium: 50 000 kW?h (3 500 000 kW?h with reprocessing)

Fuel required per year

Consequently, a 1000 MW plant requires the following number of tons (t) of fuel annually: (t = metric tons, 1000Kg)
2 600 000 t coal: 2000 train cars (1300t each)
2 000 000 t oil: 10 supertankers
30 t uranium: 10 cubic meters
428Kg uranium: 0.143 cubic meters or 143 liters (with reprocessing)
Click to expand...

Now analyze the total fuel cycle inputs and outputs for each source. Using the 428Kg number for uranium uses the same logic as the media likes to use for hydrogen as a fuel, ignoring the inputs needs to produce the hydrogen. Uranium does stack up well next to coal and oil and should be considered probably more than it is but the above numbers don't tell the story in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

I dont talk about cost in this section of the presentation.

I talk about the volumes of fuel.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Captante
Further, 3-mile island was a relatively modern & efficient nuclear power plant that came VERY close to causing a disaster which would have made Chernobyl look like a walk in the park in terms of the number of people sickened or killed by the radiation
Click to expand...

Umm, no thats completely untrue. A total meltdown wouldn't have released nearly as much radiation as at Chernobyl because TMI has a containment building which is designed to contain the resultant release of radioactive material. People in the plant itself would likely have died, but the general public would not have experienced nearly the radioactive fallout as at Chernobyl.
Click to expand...

Ironically enough people living in certain areas of europe are exposed to more daily natural radiation from Radon than people living around the Chernobyl disaster.
 
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: eits
i'm a big fan of nuclear power

as for the nuclear waste, the nuclear waste problem is mainly due to improper/illegal dumping of waste from x-rays and things like that. not as much from nuclear power plants.

also, dumping in yucca mountain seems to get a lot of panties in a knot for some reason, but if you read more about it and the process by which the material is contained, i don't think people would have much of a problem with it... considering that earth will no longer exist by the time there's even a chance for a leak or break from the container. not only that, but the chances of there being any kind of volcanic activity at yucca mountain is 0%.

the people who claim getting cancer and other diseases because they live near a nuclear power plant is ridiculous... it's impossible, unless the plant was in meltdown or something.

anyways, my mom works for the nuclear regulatory commission... she's the senior project manager for three nuclear power plants and is usually involved in top secret meetings with high ranking members of the government (pres, vp, sec of energy, legislators, etc.).
Click to expand...


We should launch our nuclear waste into space... 1 way ticket to the sun or sumthing.
Click to expand...

too expensive and a WAY higher potential for something to go wrong.
 
There actually isn't much more uranium than coal or gas left on the earth, much less if you're talking about currently economically viable uranium, and the more we extract the worse quality it will be. This will mean more ore to transport and process, producing more pollutants in the air and oceans - the very thing we are trying to avoid.

 
q]Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Captante
Further, 3-mile island was a relatively modern & efficient nuclear power plant that came VERY close to causing a disaster which would have made Chernobyl look like a walk in the park in terms of the number of people sickened or killed by the radiation
Click to expand...

Umm, no thats completely untrue. A total meltdown wouldn't have released nearly as much radiation as at Chernobyl because TMI has a containment building which is designed to contain the resultant release of radioactive material. People in the plant itself would likely have died, but the general public w[ould not have experienced nearly the radioactive fallout as at Chernobyl.
[/quote]


The top of the containment tower came uncomfortably close to blowing off according to the most recent information i've read about 3-mile island ... you are correct in saying that the concrete containment structure was the reason the radiation release was minimized, but had containment been breached the results would have been extremely bad due to the plants location & the wind direction at the time of the potential release. Further if there had been a total meltdown containment would also ultimately have been breached & nobody knows for certain what the result would have been.

I'm not debating the efficiency of nuclear power vs fossil fuels because the numbers speak for themselves, however saying that its completely safe simply isn't true... I will allow that newer technology could lower the risk further still, however my preference would be to avoid using it at all unless we have no choice regardless of this.
 
Originally posted by: BudAshes
what about the whole left over nuclear waste part?
Click to expand...

Not knowing much about nuclear power, would it be possible to launch capsules filled with nuclear waste into space?
 
I'm making a cold fusion reactor in my basement, but I need funds to help with, uh, research.... So you should invest in me... 😀
 
If nuclear power is so safe why do they have the govt insuring them against a major accident? They should use private insurance like every other power generator.
 
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: eits
there's no apostrophe after "whacko"... plural nouns don't have apostrophes
Click to expand...

"Damned" isn't an adjective either, though a lot of people use it that way.

😉
Click to expand...

damned is an adjective.
 
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey
So I'm watching Global news the other day.....and there seems to be some new nonsense called 'Ethical' savings bonds...or something like that (it's a Canadian thing).

"....will not invest your money in environmentally-unfriendly areas such as: fossil fuels, nuclear power, and the military..."

...I was shocked. We can get the same amount of energy from a FY2003 $7 USD fuel rod as a ton of coal, while not spewing multiple tons of those nasty oxides into the atmosphere -- only steam -- and these idiots are trying to brainwash people with their FUD.

Nuclear power is the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable, and safest energy source we have. It doesn't pollute like coal or oil; and doesn't require 90,000 tons of coal per day or any of our precious oil. You can get more power than the Limestone hydro station, in northern Manitoba, with only two CANDU 6-class reactors -- and you don't need to mess with fish breeding or w/e and you don't need to flood the land. You see, hydro power isn't completely clean either -- on the Canadian Shield thousands of years of peat has built up which absorbs CO2, and when you flood the land the peat dies and starts to emit that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Also, the power density of nuke power is only about a thousand times that of wind turbines/solar power.

What about spent fuel? It would be a non-issue if our government allowed us to employ breeder reactors, which a CANDU can be configured as. This would also turn a 150-year supply of fissile uranium into about a 150 million year supply of fissile plutonium.

Safe? Nuclear reactors, if built and operated by competent people, are the safest things there are. Forget about Chernobyl -- in layman's terms they attempted to put out a fire with a gasoline injection (they had graphite extenders on their control rods -- graphite was the moderator in the RBMK reactor) while they had a good supply of pure oxygen lying around (virtually every safety system was designed for nominal conditions; and they weren't even operational during the test).

I seriously became pissed off when I saw this. I just don't know how uneducated people like this can be taken seriously without even having their 'data' looked over. F*cking idiots....

-ben
Click to expand...


environmentalists wont be happy until we go back to pre-industrialized nations
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it...every one of them thinks we can't be green AND have Industry.
:roll:




Fusion.

:thumbsup:
 
During my Nuclear Reactor operator training, if I remember correctly, we did go over what went wrong with the 3-mile Island accident. Most of it was operator error, misreading indicators, by-passing safety devices, and lack of training. Also, due to that accident, many safety procedures, designs, and devices were created or implemented in the plants coming after to help prevent this from ever happening again. However, no nuclear power plant can be gauranteed 100% safe where humans are involved.

Naval nuclear power plants could almost run themselves without the operator doing much then turning a couple levers. Reactor design has come along way since the early days. I think the hold up now is purely political and because the fear of an accident will always be there, nuclear power due to fission will never be well received.
 
So go invest your money in nuclear energy and stop whining about what some environmentalists want to invest their money in.

My main beef with nuclear energy (and probably the beef of most environmentalists) is bad disposal of spent materials. Burying that s*** in Nevada somewhere in a lead and concrete bunker is not a long-term solution. Anyone living in the desert (even in a place with an average of <1in rainfall per year) who's ever have a concrete roof and forgotten to put sealant on it for a few years knows that isn't going to keep water out for very long, and if you've studied geology you'll know that water will leech through just about anything, so that waste is not going to stay contained forever. If recycling of nuclear waste becomes standard industry procedure more people would approve of nuclear power, I'd think.
 
You're absolutely wrong about nuclear power.

1, "breeder" reactors are a myth.
2, nuclear waste is going to be the biggest problem of this century.
3, 70% of the U.S. Government's energy subsidies go to the nuclear power industry, which in turn produces less than 30% of our profit. If we revoked those criminal subsidies, it'd collapse overnight.

You're right about the absurdity of thinking coal is cleaner than nuclear power, though. That's just insane.

Also, it's impossible to have a power reactor without having the technology to produce weapons, so even in a perfect world, it'd only be a solution for countries we wouldn't mind having the Bomb (which is exactly 1).
 
Originally posted by: BudAshes
what about the whole left over nuclear waste part?
Click to expand...

better to have your nuclear waste in concentrated form than spewed into the atmosphere like coal plants (which have more radioactive waste per MW than nuclear, not to even mention toxic non-nuclear waste).
 
I think man is too ignorant to safely use nuclear power. Consider the half-life of P239 is 24,110 years. Are we truly going to risk the lives of those on this planet 24,110 years from now to our inexperience folly into a science we know little about? If you can't store the waste 100% safely, you shouldn't be messing around with it. Have a look at Hanford's experiences with waste management. They won't be happy until every living thing along the Columbia river is dead. On the grand scale, 24,110 years is a long long time. Put your egos in check and find a safer solution. kthx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top